Oral
Answers to
Questions

Treasury

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Creative Industries

Giles Watling: What fiscal steps he is taking to support creative industries.

Jeremy Hunt: At the spring Budget, the Government announced a package of tax reliefs for our world-leading creative industries worth £1 billion over the next five years, including a 40% relief on business rates for eligible film studios in England and enhanced tax reliefs for visual effects.

Giles Watling: As we know, the UK’s cultural offer is world-beating and, particularly through the performing arts, the UK projects soft power across the globe. While welcoming the progressive tax breaks for our incredible film industry, it would appear that our far-reaching, high-end television offer has been left behind in the recent Budget. Does my right hon. Friend have plans to redress this deficit to ensure that the UK remains first on screens around the world?

Jeremy Hunt: No one knows more about high-end TV than my hon. Friend. Whoever said that politics is showbusiness for ugly people was absolutely wrong in his case. I will take away what he says and consider high-end television as a potential future Budget measure.

Tim Farron: The Chancellor will be aware of the award-winning film “The Windermere Children”, which talks about the legacy of those Jewish children who survived the death camps in central Europe and made a new life for themselves on the banks of Lake Windermere at Troutbeck Bridge. For the last several years, there has been an ongoing exhibition on their legacy at Windermere library, and now we look to build a lasting memorial alongside a rebuilt Lakes School at Troutbeck Bridge.
Will the Chancellor be interested in meeting the families of the Windermere children, and those behind the new build and the provision of a new lasting memorial to their legacy, at Windermere at some point in the foreseeable future?

Jeremy Hunt: That is a very tempting offer, and I will see whether my diary permits me to visit the hon. Gentleman in his constituency. I have not seen the film, but I have seen a film on a holocaust theme called “The Zone of Interest”, which is a remarkable British-led film that I thoroughly recommend to him.

Strength of the Economy

Chi Onwurah: What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the economy.

Clive Lewis: What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the economy.

Jeremy Hunt: The economy is beginning to turn a corner after a series of unprecedented shocks. Inflation has more than halved, GDP grew in January and the economy is on a path to long-term growth.

Chi Onwurah: The economy has grown at a snail’s pace under the Tories, but that snail is still 30% faster nationally than in the north-east, despite our strengths in clean energy, manufacturing, science and health. On average, my constituents are £11,500 worse off that they would have been had the economy grown at the same rate that it grew under Labour. Is it any wonder that the Public Accounts Committee found no compelling evidence of levelling up? Is a vote for the Tories not a vote for continued economic failure?

Jeremy Hunt: It is not, because we have grown faster than Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Germany and multiple other countries since 2010. With respect to the north-east in particular, the hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that our vision is to spread growth into every corner of the country. That is why, in the last three months alone, both the Prime Minister and I have been to the Nissan factory in Sunderland to mark its decision to make two electric car models in the UK. Just last week, we announced the opening of a massive new film studio in Sunderland that will bring more than 8,000 jobs to the north-east.

Clive Lewis: According to the LSE’s Grantham Research Institute, the Government’s current programme for investment to mitigate the worst effects of climate change will still see climate change damage to the UK increase from 1.1% of GDP to 3.3% by 2050 and 7.4% by the end of the century. To put it into context, that is the United Kingdom’s entire social care budget of around £25 billion. The Climate Change Committee has said that the current approach to adaptation
“falls far short of what is required.”
Has the Treasury made any attempt to assess the cost to GDP, the public finances and jobs of failing to invest for climate adaptation?

Jeremy Hunt: We listen very carefully to what the Climate Change Committee says, and we are absolutely committed to net zero. In fact, a Conservative Government passed the law requiring Governments to commit to net zero. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have just become the first major industrialised country to decarbonise by more than 50% since 1990. As well as the costs, we  are also mindful of the economic opportunities, which is why we are investing billions of pounds in our clean energy transformation.

Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency, which has Cambridge to the north, has fantastic new industries such as Johnson Matthey in Royston, which is at the forefront of hydrogen. We have pharma companies to the south and some of the best film studios in the world in Hertfordshire. Is he consciously trying to back those successful industries of the future so that our children and grandchildren have fantastic opportunities for the future?

Jeremy Hunt: That is absolutely what we are trying to do. Film and TV is a good example here, as it has now become an offshoot of the technology industry. Films such as “Barbie” have been filmed in Hertfordshire but have the look of the Californian sunshine; they can withstand the British rain because of the use of high-tech devices that simulate Californian sunshine, even in  my right hon. and learned Friend’s constituency. What he sets out is our absolutely our plan and we will  stick with it.

Richard Fuller: In response to covid, this Government introduced the furlough scheme, and delivered and funded the world’s first vaccine. In response to the energy price spike, this Government introduced comprehensive support for families. The Office for Budget Responsibility, so beloved of the shadow Chancellor, had its long-range forecast for 2025 to 2028 showing GDP increasing every year, GDP per capita increasing every year, average earnings increasing every year in real terms and productivity increasing in real terms. So does the Chancellor agree that when the shadow Chancellor says that we face a 1979 moment, she is right: a choice between a Labour party still in hock to its union bosses and a Conservative party committed to growth?

Jeremy Hunt: I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend’s brilliant list of statistics, except to cite another independent organisation, the International Monetary Fund, which says that in the next five years this country, under Conservative leadership, will grow faster than France, Germany, Italy and Japan.

James Murray: The British people are paying the price for 14 years of Conservative economic failure, with lower wages, higher taxes and public services on their knees. Time and again, the Conservatives hide behind international factors and take no responsibility for their failures. Yet figures from the OECD confirm that the UK is the only G7 advanced economy now in recession and, according to the IMF, our economy is forecast to have the second slowest growth in the G7 this year. So can the Chancellor tell us: why is the UK so far behind other major economies under the Conservatives?

Jeremy Hunt: Well, it is not, because it is actually growing faster than France, Germany and a bunch of other countries. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned 14 years, because we can look at what has happened under 14 years of Labour in Wales,  where unemployment is higher, NHS waiting lists are longer, school standards are worse and growth is lower. What is Labour’s reaction to that terrible record? It has just promoted the Economy Minister to First Minister.

Tax Policies: Impact on Living Standards

Paul Blomfield: What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of his tax policies on living standards.

Dan Carden: What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of his tax policies on living standards.

Rachel Hopkins: What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of his tax policies on living standards.

Nigel Huddleston: Thanks to the combined impact of national insurance cuts and above-inflation increases to thresholds since 2010, an average worker on £35,400 in 2024-25 will pay over £1,500 less in personal taxes than they otherwise would have done. These national insurance contribution cuts were possible due to the significant progress we have made in combating inflation.

Paul Blomfield: I heard what the Minister has to say but does he not recognise the OBR’s assessment of the interplay between the Government’s threshold changes and NICs? The OBR concludes that for every 5p gain per year there is a 10p loss, particularly for those on lower wages. Does he accept the OBR assessment?

Nigel Huddleston: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman looks carefully, he will see that the Government have demonstrated their commitment to supporting the most vulnerable in society. He will also have heard my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) explain the circumstances as to why we have higher taxes than we would desire. If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that Labour party policy is to change the thresholds, perhaps he can have that conversation with the shadow Chancellor, who can explain how she would pay for that.

Dan Carden: The OBR has said that this will be the worst Parliament on record for living standards and the only one in which they have fallen: people are poorer after 14 years of this Government. We do not need fiscal tweaks; this economy needs renewal. It needs to bring in investment on a major scale, and a new age of education, training and employment in the real economy. My constituents cannot afford to wait while the Tory party looks for its polling fortunes to change. Have we not now reached the point where the best thing for the economy is a general election?

Nigel Huddleston: I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s explanation. Not only will I repeat that our constituents completely understand the difficult global circumstances, with the pandemic and the cost of living challenges following the invasion of Ukraine, but I can say that we have grown faster since 2010 than many other major economies, and the IMF forecasts that we will grow faster than Germany, France, Italy  and Japan. In the year to the third quarter of 2023, real household disposable income per person was around £1,100 higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility expected in its spring Budget 2023 forecast. We have turned a corner, and the best thing to do is to stick with the Conservatives.

Rachel Hopkins: The Minister says that the economy has turned a corner, but households will be £870 worse off on average under the Conservatives tax plan, and they will also be seeing their costs up by £110 a week compared with before the last election. Is the Minister proud of his record?

Nigel Huddleston: We are immensely proud of our record since 2010: living standards have increased, and growth is now better than that of many other major economies. Our absolute commitment to protecting the most vulnerable in society was shown recently when we provided an average of £3,400 in cost of living support for each household. We have turned a corner, and the economy is improving. I am just disappointed that the Opposition constantly talk down the UK economy and their constituents.

Steve Double: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, following the 4p cut in national insurance that the Chancellor has introduced, the tax take on workers will be the lowest it has been for 50 years? In St Austell and Newquay, two people in a household on average incomes will be paying £1,800 less this coming year than they did last year.

Nigel Huddleston: Yes, absolutely, my hon. Friend has pointed out an important point on how we have had a laser focus on reducing the personal tax rates. Furthermore, the measures announced in the autumn statement and in the spring Budget will significantly add to economic activity, contributing about 200,000 full-time equivalent jobs to the economy, and I am sure that the whole House will welcome that.

Luke Evans: Pensioners can often struggle because they have a fixed income, so I was pleased that the Chancellor stuck with the triple lock last year, guaranteeing an increase of 10.1%. Will the Minister explain how the 8.5% rise that people will be getting in a couple of weeks’ time will make a difference to their living standards?

Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is the case that not only have the measures in the autumn statement and the spring Budget helped workers, but we have also focused on helping pensioners. Those on the new state pension will benefit to the tune of about £900 a year, which is significant, and the national insurance cuts will benefit the average worker —27 million employees—by £900 a year. Therefore, we have implemented a fair and balanced Budget and fair and balanced measures.

Jonathan Gullis: Families in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke have been supported by this national insurance cut, which means that the average family will be £1,800 a year better off. The freezing of the fuel duty means that motorists will be able to get around without being unfairly charged at  the pump. Money from this Government has enabled Stoke-on-Trent to cut bus fares by a third, so that people can travel around. We have had £56 million from the levelling-up fund and £17.6 million for the Kidsgrove town deal, which means that the sports centre will be refurbished and reopened, improving people’s health chances. The Labour party closed it because it could not be bothered to pay a single pound to save it back in 2017. Is it not the reality that we have a clear plan that will help the families of our great constituencies, particularly in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, while Labour will borrow more, tax us higher and lead us back into recession, just as it did in 2008-09?

Nigel Huddleston: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. This is fantastic, and I think it is a recurring pattern, Mr Speaker. We have positivity, optimism, and confidence in the future of the UK economy from Conservative Members, but absolute negativity from Opposition Members, because they have no plan, they have no clue and they have no hope. We have a plan and it is working.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Darren Jones: Why does the Treasury Minister think people feel worse off after 14 years of Conservative Government?

Nigel Huddleston: As I said, we are turning a corner and have therefore made measures to put money back into people’s pockets. I do not think it would come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, or to those of any Labour Member looking at the Labour Opposition’s recent record, that Labour claimed on the one hand that it was supportive of tax cuts, but last week failed to support those tax cuts when it came to it in Parliament.

Darren Jones: The Minister did not answer the question about why the public feel worse off. We on the Labour side of the House know why. He mentions tax cuts, but he does not talk about the freezing of tax thresholds, or indeed about the council tax that is about to be levied on people, not just this year but each year for the next five years. Why cannot he admit that, for every 10p extra in the pound taken from people since 2010, the Government are only now giving back just 5p?

Nigel Huddleston: If I am hearing correctly, the Labour Front Benchers are announcing fundamental changes to policy that they have not yet costed. They did not object, as far as I am aware, to any of the measures required to support households and businesses during the pandemic, which necessitated increases in taxation. We are now reducing the level of taxation because we have turned a corner. They did not support that. It is interesting that they say one thing but then do not take action. I think they need to explain to their constituents why they failed to support the tax cuts last week.

Block Grant Funding

Martyn Day: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Spring Budget 2024 on levels of block grant funding for Scotland.

Deidre Brock: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Spring Budget 2024 on levels of block grant funding for Scotland.

Alan Brown: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Spring Budget 2024 on levels of block grant funding for Scotland.

Laura Trott: As a result of decisions at the spring Budget, the Scottish Government are receiving around £295 million in additional funding in 2024-25 through the Barnett formula.

Martyn Day: According to the Commons Library, the Government have cut the Scottish Government’s capital funding by 16% in real terms from 2022-23 to 2024-25. The Institute for Fiscal Studies forecasts that there will be a further 16% cut by 2029. After 14 years of austerity, inflation and covid, can the Minister tell me why the Chancellor is taking a hammer to our Scottish public services?

Laura Trott: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the block grant has been going up in real terms. He will also be aware that the Scottish Government can switch resource to capital—unlimited amounts, if they choose to do so. He will also be aware, I am sure, that the Scottish Government can borrow up to £400 million of capital each year if they so wish.

Deidre Brock: The Tories have failed to invest in our public services and high-growth industries, dragging the nations of the UK into recession and increased income inequality. The UK Government continue to impose hard cuts to public services. The Commons Library has found that the Scottish block grant will have fallen in real terms in every year since 2020, yet UK Government Ministers continue to deny that fact. Does the Minister understand what “real terms” actually means, and does she see the devastating impact that this is having on public services?

Laura Trott: Just to be absolutely clear, the Scottish Government’s total departmental expenditure limit is growing in real terms over this Parliament by over 1% a year on average.

Alan Brown: Obviously, the Minister does not understand what “real terms” means after all. Analysis by the Institution of Civil Engineers shows a multiplier effect: every £1 spent in the construction industry brings in an additional £2 of spend. That means that the real-terms cut to the Scottish Government’s block grant for capital by £1.6 billion over two years further deprives our economy of a wider £3 billion. Why do this Government think that it is okay to decimate infrastructure spend in Scotland?

Laura Trott: The Scottish Government are well funded to deliver their devolved responsibilities, and receive 25% more funding on average per person than the equivalent UK Government spending in other parts. That translates to £8.5 billion more a year on average.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Drew Hendry: Consequentials have consequences. The Chancellor announced in his Budget £20 billion of cuts for the public sector, including cuts of 13% in some Departments, and that defies logic. The public sector is crying out for funding, but his choices, if implemented, will lay waste to it. Does the Minister agree with the IFS, which said that it would be genuinely surprising if the Chancellor’s plans could be carried out, or with the Institute for Government, which said that
“these spending plans will be impossible to deliver”,
or with the Resolution Foundation, which said that the plans were fiscal fantasy?

Laura Trott: Over the next Parliament, our plans are for spending to go up in real terms—I want to be absolutely clear about that. Equally, spending has gone up in real terms over this Parliament too. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that at the beginning of my answers, I explained that Scotland is getting £295 million extra this year through Barnett consequentials.

Drew Hendry: It is no wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that there is a “conspiracy of silence” from both the Government and the Labour party over the scale of these cuts. As a percentage of UK spending, the Scottish block grant is set to fall to its lowest ever level under devolution, dwarfing its other plans. For Scotland, House of Commons Library figures show capital funding falling by 16% over the next two years. The Chancellor has already confirmed that the Scottish energy sector is the biggest loser from his Budget, and he is doubling down. Why are this Government and this Chancellor trying to be the new hammer of Scots?

Laura Trott: The only area in which I agree with the hon. Gentleman is that I would love to know what the Labour party’s spending plans are for the next Parliament—perhaps Labour Members will enlighten us this evening. I will repeat what I said at the beginning about capital: the Scottish Government have unlimited ability to switch from resource spending to capital spending. That is a choice that they have.

Regional Economic Inequalities

Afzal Khan: What recent fiscal steps he has taken to help reduce regional economic inequalities.

Kim Johnson: What recent fiscal steps he has taken to help reduce the level of economic inequality between the north and south of England.

Gareth Davies: The Government continue to tackle regional economic inequalities and level up the United Kingdom. The Government are empowering local leaders through a range of devolution deals, regenerating places across the country and investing in vital infrastructure.

Afzal Khan: In response to this month’s Budget, the director of the Institute for Public Policy Research North has said that
“This Budget is the government’s admission that it has given up on levelling up this parliament, despite there being much left to do.”
Delivering on the Government’s levelling-up commitments would mean that my constituents would benefit from reduced social welfare dependency, increased earnings potential, and improved health and wellbeing. Does the Minister not think that my constituents and all citizens outside London and the south-east deserve the benefits that come with economic prosperity?

Gareth Davies: We are committed to levelling up, and are delivering on it across the country. Median pay growth has been higher in every region outside London and the south-east under this Government, and the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is receiving £19 million from round 1 of the levelling-up fund and £20 million from round 3. We have announced a Greater Manchester trailblazer devolution deal and a Greater Manchester investment zone, which will bring more jobs and prosperity for all of his constituents.

Kim Johnson: I have heard what Ministers have said this morning, and I must be living in an alternative universe. Liverpool has some of the most deprived wards in the country, which have experienced poverty and destitution over the past 14 years as a result of austerity. Some 300,000 people have accessed the household support fund, and while we are a resilient city and will continue to support those households, can the Minister explain what safety net will be put in place to support those in poverty and destitution when the household support fund ends in six months’ time?

Gareth Davies: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that we have extended the household support fund for the most vulnerable. That is on the back of £96 billion of support during the energy crisis and nearly £400 billion of support through the global pandemic. I would just point out to the hon. Lady that the fundamental difference between Conservative Members and Labour Members is that we believe the best route out of poverty is through work, and our party is increasing employment.

Derek Thomas: Across Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, most jobs are supplied by very small businesses, many of which fall below the VAT threshold. Given the economic inequalities around the region, the increase of the VAT threshold to £90,000 is very welcome, but the threshold being that low and the cliff-edge effect of going from zero to 20% have a chilling impact on growing small businesses and providing all-year-round jobs. Will the Minister consider introducing some sort of taper for that £90,000 threshold, and increasing the VAT threshold further—maybe in the region of £120,000?

Gareth Davies: My hon. Friend is right: we increased the VAT threshold for small businesses, which will benefit 28,000 businesses across the country. We feel that the £90,000 threshold strikes the right balance between managing public finances sustainably and supporting businesses, but as my hon. Friend knows, we keep these things under review.

Stephen Crabb: The port of Milford Haven in my constituency has been right out in front, taking a lead in investing in decarbonisation  and showing how it can boost the economy of Wales and reduce inequality. Yesterday, it was told that its bid to the Government’s floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme—its port funding scheme—had been rejected out of hand. Will my hon. Friend ask his good friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet me to talk about the important work being done at the UK’s leading oil and gas port, and about how the UK Government can support those efforts financially?

Gareth Davies: FLOWMIS is an incredibly important scheme in improving and enhancing our ability to expand floating offshore wind. We are a huge supporter of my right hon. Friend’s constituents and of the whole of Wales. If the Chancellor cannot meet him, I would be very happy to do so.

High-income Child Benefit Charge

Karl McCartney: Good morning, just, Mr Speaker. What assessment he has made of the impact of raising the high-income child benefit charge threshold on household incomes.

Nigel Huddleston: The Government will raise the point at which child benefit is fully withdrawn to £80,000 from £60,000, and we will raise the high-income child benefit charge threshold to £60,000 from £50,000 from 6 April 2024, taking 170,000 families out of paying the charge. Overall, these changes mean that almost half a million hard-working families will gain an average of £1,260 towards the cost of raising their children.

Karl McCartney: Good afternoon, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] These changes are welcome, and they mean that more Lincoln families will receive more support from the Government, as I told the Minister in Lincoln on Friday. Will my hon. Friend confirm when the formal consultation on basing child benefit on household income rather than on individual income will commence, if the civil servants in the Treasury will let him do it?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend. It was a pleasure, as always, to meet him in his constituency on Friday, where we discussed this matter and many others. The Government will launch a consultation in due course on how to end this unfairness by administering the HICBC on a household rather than an individual basis. Doing so would require significant reform of the tax system, as our tax infrastructure does not currently have a mechanism to consider household income, but the Government plan to end the unfairness for single-earner families in the child benefit system by administering the HICBC on a household rather than an individual basis by April 2026.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for that. Child benefit income is an integral part of how families make their money last through the whole week. If there are any changes that will reduce it in any way, is it the Minister’s intention to ensure that those who have questions, difficulties or concerns have their concerns and wishes taken on board? It is really important that those facing financial changes can cope with the changes to come.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is precisely because of the complexities involved that we will have the consultation. I am sure that his views  and those of his constituents will be warmly welcomed in that.

Business Investment

Simon Baynes: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to help increase the level of business investment.

Gareth Davies: At the autumn statement in 2023, the Chancellor set out ambitious growth packages designed to boost business investment, including making full expensing permanent and a tax cut to companies of over £10 billion a year to ensure we have one of the most generous capital allowances in the world. With further growth-enhancing measures set out in spring Budget 2024, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that Government policy announced at the past three fiscal events is expected to increase the size of the economy by 0.7% by 2028-29.

Simon Baynes: Like my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), I was delighted to see the increase in the VAT threshold from £85,000 to £90,000 in the Budget. That will help small businesses invest for the future, such as the Two Doves café and gift shop in Overton, which is popular with people from both Clwyd South and North Shropshire. However, given the vital importance to small businesses, will my hon. Friend prioritise increasing the VAT threshold again in the next fiscal intervention?

Gareth Davies: My hon. Friend comes to this House with significant business experience, so when he talks, we certainly listen, and I am delighted to hear that he was pleased with the VAT threshold increase. I can tell him that, in addition to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) about the £90,000 threshold, this level is higher than that of any EU member state and is the joint highest in the OECD. Many of his businesses will be among the 28,000 that will benefit from the increase, so we have no plans at this stage to change it.

Andrew Gwynne: But the actual record of this Government over the past 14 years is abysmal. It is a fact that business investment has been consistently among the lowest in both the OECD and the G7, and now the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting a further 5% fall this year. Why?

Gareth Davies: Announcements in each of our last three fiscal events have enhanced our business investment environment for international investors: we have the second highest foreign direct investment stock in the world; we have some of the best universities in the world, which are attracting businesses; we have announced full expensing, which is a £10 billion-a-year tax cut; we have the lowest corporation tax in the G7; and we are reforming our energy grid, bringing investment into our net zero ambitions. We are reforming our systems, reducing our taxes, and encouraging investment.

Safe Hands Plans

Nick Smith: Whether he has had recent discussions with the Financial Conduct Authority on the administration of Safe Hands Plans.

Bim Afolami: I recognise that this has been a very challenging time for Safe Hands customers. The hon. Member will be aware that the FCA, as the independent regulator of the funeral plan sector, is responsible for dealing with specific cases. However, the Treasury and the FCA have worked closely throughout the process of bringing the sector into regulation, as well as during the implementation of the new regulatory framework.

Nick Smith: My experience of the FCA and the Safe Hands funeral plan fiasco is that it took six months to reply to my freedom of information request and pleaded commercial confidentiality to key questions, and that, despite being warned, the Treasury failed to support consumers moving from an unregulated sector into regulation. It appears to me that the Treasury missed opportunities to support consumers and is still shuffling its feet. At least 47,000 people are out of pocket to the tune of £60 million. They were trying to protect their loved ones from expensive funerals at the worst of times. Will the Minister consider an independent review of this matter? A constructive response is needed to ensure that Safe Hands victims can have confidence in a system that for too long has let them down.

Bim Afolami: I share the hon. Member’s anger at how Safe Hands customers have been treated. The business is under criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office and its administrators are bringing legal action against the former owner of the Safe Hands business. In the Treasury, we do not believe it is right to use taxpayer money to compensate consumers who lose out due to the conduct of unregulated firms; Safe Hands was not within the regulatory perimeter at that time. However, we have worked with the sector so that the two largest providers of funeral plans have agreed to provide significantly discounted replacement plans for the customers who have found themselves so badly treated.

Cost of Living

Chris Stephens: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of increases in the cost of living on households in 2024.

Laura Trott: The rise in inflation caused by Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine and the subsequent energy price shock has put enormous pressure on households. Thanks to work by the Bank of England and the Government, the rate of inflation is going down, with the Office for Budget Responsibility expecting it to be back to target next autumn.

Chris Stephens: Since the disastrous Tory mini-Budget of 2022, households are continuing to feel the squeeze at the supermarket, with food prices continuing to rise and real wages falling for the longest unbroken run  since records began. Food prices have risen by 26% over the last two years. When will the Government listen to those who wish to follow the lead of Canada and France by introducing a price cap on staple food items at the supermarket?

Laura Trott: Real wages are now, happily, starting to rise and, as I have said, the OBR has said that inflation will be back to target next quarter. What would not help the cost of living is putting people’s taxes up, as the Scottish Government are doing.

Tulip Siddiq: The tax burden is at a record high, wages are stagnant, rents and mortgages are up by hundreds of pounds, and food prices have gone up by 25%. The Resolution Foundation has confirmed that this is the only Parliament on record during which living standards have fallen. Our constituents deserve better. When is the Minister going to give the British public a chance to vote for change and call for a general election?

Laura Trott: We have talked a lot today about the £400 billion of support that we put in during the pandemic and the £100 billion of support that we put in to support people during Putin’s energy price shock. The Labour party did not disagree with any of those things, and I think the hon. Lady in her heart of hearts will know that we have to pay for that—at least, I hope she does. We have had to take some difficult decisions, but because of that, the economy is turning a corner. We are able to reduce working people’s taxes, and I hope that she and her party will find it within themselves to support us in that endeavour.

Support for Small Businesses

James Davies: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support small businesses.

Paul Holmes: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support small businesses.

Flick Drummond: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support small businesses.

Gareth Davies: Small businesses drive our economy and we support them to thrive using levers across Government, whether that is through our small business rate relief, by increasing the VAT registration threshold, by providing reliefs such as the annual investment allowance or through various programmes offered by the British Business Bank.

James Davies: The Welsh Government are increasing the burden on small businesses by reducing retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75% to just 40%, despite the UK Government rightly extending that relief in England in the Budget. That means that businesses in my constituency, such as the Little Cheesemonger, Now to Bed, Presents with a Difference and Tu Mundo, are all facing unsustainable business rates bills. One business has to find an extra £35,000 a year for business rates alone. What advice does the Minister have for small businesses in north Wales facing these onerous bills?

Gareth Davies: My hon. Friend is right that at the autumn statement, this Government extended the retail, hospitality and leisure relief in England—a tax cut worth £2.5 billion for small businesses. The Barnett formula applies to allow the Welsh Labour Government to offer similar relief if they want to. It is disappointing, if not surprising, that when given the opportunity, Labour decides not to cut taxes for working people.

Paul Holmes: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best steps that the Government can take to support small businesses in Eastleigh, Hedge End and Botley is through a package of business rate reductions? Will he outline to the House the progress the Government have made in this regard, which was desperately needed?

Gareth Davies: My hon. Friend is right. Business rate relief is a great way to support small businesses in Eastleigh and across the country. Our small business rate relief means that one third of all properties in England already pay no business rates at all. We have frozen the small business multiplier, protecting more than 1 million properties from a multiplier increase. As I was just saying, we are supporting high streets with our retail, hospitality and leisure relief.

Flick Drummond: Just after the Budget, I met some of the small businesses in my constituency at the Flower Pots in Cheriton. While they were pleased with some of the Budget, they talked about improving productivity and growth by raising the VAT threshold far beyond £90,000, and possibly to £250,000. They felt that that would incentivise sole traders and small businesses to expand and work longer hours. They feel at present that growth is restricted because of the level of the VAT threshold. Has the Chancellor given any thought to increasing the threshold to improve productivity?

Gareth Davies: My hon. Friend is right to engage in the way that she is with her small businesses. We believe that the £90,000 threshold, which has just been increased, strikes the right balance between managing the public finances and supporting small businesses. I encourage her to look at the wider package of support that the Government are providing for small businesses, not least the business rate relief that I was just talking about.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Minister have discussions with his counterparts in the devolved institutions to ensure that the likes of sole traders and small businesses see a reduction in bureaucracy to make them more profitable, offering more business opportunities to more people across the United Kingdom?

Gareth Davies: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government engage frequently with our counterparts in the Northern Ireland Administration, and that will continue to be the case.

Mike Amesbury: According to the Federation of Small Businesses, two in three small businesses are suffering from late payments. We are now 14 years into a Tory Government. Why do the Government not follow Labour’s lead and strengthen the law on this?

Gareth Davies: We are acutely aware of this issue, and I have had meetings with the FSB. That is why the Chancellor has announced plans to improve the situation for small businesses. I am happy to outline that in writing to the hon. Gentleman.

Alison Thewliss: One of the requests from female-led businesses in my constituency, including Cùrlach and Rock’n Rollers, was for a VAT cut for hairdressing businesses. Can the Minister tell me why that was not considered in the Budget? These businesses are an important part of our high streets and they are often led by women, who have missed out significantly in the Chancellor’s Budget.

Gareth Davies: We of course support hairdressers, our high streets and women-run businesses, which is why we have extended the retail, hospitality and leisure relief to 75%. Cutting taxes for hard-working people is what the Conservative Government do.

Income Tax Policies: Pensioners

Helen Morgan: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of his income tax policies on pensioners.

Nigel Huddleston: The Government have nearly doubled the personal allowance since 2010, and in 2024-25 it will be more than 20% higher in real terms than if it had been uprated by inflation since 2010-11. The personal allowance is currently set at a high enough level to ensure that pensioners whose sole income is the full rate of the new state pension, or the basic-rate pension, do not pay any income tax.

Helen Morgan: I have been contacted by pensioners in my constituency who get a full state pension plus protected payments from the old scheme. The increase in their pensions in line with inflation has put them over the personal allowance threshold for paying income tax, which has eaten away at that increase. Was it the Minister’s intention in the Budget to drag pensioners into paying income tax?

Nigel Huddleston: As I have outlined, and as the Resolution Foundation and others have pointed out, pensioners have gained about £1,000 on average as a result of the Government’s decisions since 2010 to increase thresholds. Some pensioners rely solely on the state for their incomes, and we are supporting pensioners through a variety of other measures: not only the triple lock but pension credit and cost of living support. Pensioners across the country will benefit from the 8.5% increase coming in April.

Andrea Jenkyns: I welcome the recent tax cuts. We need to ensure that those who work hard and do the right thing are rewarded in their old age. Can the Treasury please stop allocating funds to France, which is clearly not stopping the boats, stop extortionate amounts being spent on hotels for illegal migrants, and reduce the foreign aid budget? Maybe then we can give even more to our pensioners.

Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend will be well aware that Government Members are implementing measures to tackle the very problems she outlines while turning the corner in the economy and doing everything we can to put more money back in people’s pockets, whether workers or pensioners.

Tax-free Shopping

Nickie Aiken: What assessment he has made of the potential merits of reintroducing tax-free shopping for international visitors.

Nigel Huddleston: As set out at the spring Budget, we are considering the findings of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s review of the original costing of the withdrawal of tax-free shopping, alongside industry representations and broader data. The Government welcome further submissions from stakeholders in response to the OBR’s findings as we keep all taxes under review.

Nickie Aiken: Last week, the OBR informed the Treasury Committee that it has not assessed the Treasury’s forecast that it would cost £900 million to extend tax-free shopping to EU visitors. The OBR has also failed to support the Treasury’s assumption that EU visitor behaviour and costs can be extrapolated from assessed non-EU data. The UK retail industry firmly believes that it will cost as little as £50 million to reintroduce tax-free shopping for tourists. As we mark English Tourism Week, is it not time that we had a full, independent review of the Treasury’s data on tax-free shopping?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend for her consistent championing of tourism, particularly during English Tourism Week. It is not in the OBR’s remit to consider the effect of alternative policies and, as expanding tax-free shopping to EU visitors is not current Government policy, it has not considered that. However, the findings of the review will be useful in giving insights on the overall behavioural incentives of the policy, which will be relevant for both EU and non-EU populations. It is therefore right that the Government take time to consider the OBR’s findings along with other representations and within the context of broader data, as announced in the Budget.

Topical Questions

Andrew Bridgen: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on living standards in the UK. The most recent data suggest that despite a tough couple of years caused by the pandemic and the energy crisis, living standards will return to their pre-covid peak next year: a full two years earlier than originally predicted by the OBR. They have risen by £1,700 a household in real terms since 2010, and this year’s cut in national insurance will increase living standards by 1%. In other words, to coin a phrase, now is not the time to go back to square one.

Andrew Bridgen: Given that the Prime Minister has been forced to abandon his plans for an election on 2 May and could soon be facing a leadership challenge, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer believe that his Budget landed well with the public or even his colleagues on the Government Benches?

Jeremy Hunt: I say very simply to the hon. Gentleman, who used to be an hon. Friend, that the Budget will mean that the UK economy will grow faster than that of France, Germany, Italy or Japan in the next five years. That is doing the right thing for the country.

Anna Firth: I would like to thank the Minister for the opportunity to meet UK Finance yesterday, which told me and other MPs that the industry plans to roll out 225 banking hubs in the next 18 months. Given that my constituency has lost every single bank branch over the last few years, will the Minister help me to make sure that Leigh-on-Sea, which has 250 retailers, will get one of those 225 banking hubs?

Bim Afolami: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. First, it is important to note her consistent championing of this issue for her constituents, for which she deserves huge commendation. To her precise question, it is important that industry, not the Government, makes decisions about bank branches or banking hubs, but she has made her case very ably. I urge her to work with Cash Access UK and LINK to ensure that she has the best chance of securing one of those new 225 banking hubs, as outlined by the industry, in her constituency.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Rachel Reeves: After the Budget, the Chancellor wrote to Conservative party members telling them that the Government planned to abolish national insurance. The Economic Secretary said that “national insurance will vanish”, and the Prime Minister said it was his “ambition” to abolish it. Will the Chancellor confirm whether he asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to cost the Government’s unfunded plan to abolish national insurance contributions?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very glad that the right hon. Lady asks about national insurance cuts, because first she supported them, then she abstained in the Lobby, and now she appears to be against them—like the bankers’ bonus tax, which she was strongly in favour of and then strongly against; like £28 billion of borrowing, which she was strongly in favour of and then strongly against. Is not the actual truth that, where Labour should have an economic policy, there is just a black hole filled with platitudes?

Rachel Reeves: The Chancellor did not even attempt to answer the question. The chair of the OBR told the Treasury Committee the week after the Budget:
“It was not a measure given to us to cost”.
Even the Chancellor’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who was sacked for his own kamikaze Budget, said, “If you’re going to   reduce taxes, you have to show at least partially where the money’s going to come from.” So I ask the Chancellor: where will the money come from? Will it come from cuts to the NHS, the state pension and public services? Will it come from increasing taxes, including for pensioners? Or will it come from increasing borrowing? Which one, Chancellor?

Jeremy Hunt: Even Torsten Bell from the left-leaning Resolution Foundation said that the right hon. Lady’s argument that this was a mini Budget-style black hole was nonsense, because we specifically said that we would not fund national insurance cuts from increasing borrowing or cutting spending on public services. I gently ask her, if she wants to put on the mantle of fiscal rectitude, where is Labour going to find literally billions of pounds to fund unfunded spending pledges, from grid decarbon-isation to NHS waiting lists? We all know what that will lead to: higher taxes, like under every Labour Government in history.

Nickie Aiken: St Mary’s in Paddington is a much-loved, much-used hospital in my constituency. Although it was taken off the list of 40 new hospitals to be redeveloped, I am delighted to be working with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) and the Minister in the Lords responsible for hospitals to make a case with the trust to ensure that it is redeveloped. Could the Chief Secretary to the Treasury please update the House on the timeframe for making available Government funding so that we can submit the planning business case for the redevelopment?

Laura Trott: I commend my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) on their great work on this project. There appears to be a compelling case, and I know that the programme team at the Department of Health and Social Care is looking closely at the proposal.

Wendy Chamberlain: The Fife whisky festival took place in Cupar earlier this month, and was a great success. The industry welcomes the freeze in alcohol duty, but notes that it is only for six months. When will the Government provide the longer term consistency that the industry needs?

Gareth Davies: Our support for the Scotch Whisky Association is long-standing, and it was a pleasure to meet its representatives recently. We have frozen or cut duty for Scottish whisky in fiscal events going back many years. We are representing the Scotch Whisky Association in trade agreements, and that support will endure long into the future.

Jill Mortimer: In response to the spring Budget, I have heard from constituents who feel that they may have been forgotten. Under the Conservatives, the number of pensioners living in absolute poverty has been slashed by 200,000 across the country, and we have protected the triple lock, but could my   right hon. Friend please remind me of all the steps that his Department is taking to support Hartlepool’s pensioners, so that I can tell them on the doorsteps this weekend?

Jeremy Hunt: I would be delighted to do that. The independent Resolution Foundation said that, because of measures that this Government have taken, pensioners are £1,000 better off in real terms than in 2010. We did two things specifically in the Budget: we put £6 billion into the NHS, which is used more by pensioners than anyone else; and we backed workers’ tax cuts to support growth in the economy, which means that we can continue to fund the triple lock for many years to come.

Paul Blomfield: One of my constituents wrote to me last week about her son Fred. He has Down’s syndrome and severe learning disabilities, is profoundly deaf and has an autism diagnosis. His parents and grandparents did the right thing and put money into a child trust fund for him. Fred will be 18 next month, but he lacks the capacity to access his money and there is no easy way for his parents to do so. Will the Chancellor work with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice to unlock the money for Fred and an estimated 80,000 disabled young people?

Bim Afolami: I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the precise circumstances of his constituent’s case. In general terms, it is a priority for us to ensure that people get access to that money if it is due to them.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

Harriett Baldwin: Did the Chancellor see an article yesterday in which the independent director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that the average earner in the UK now has the lowest effective personal tax rate since 1975—lower than in America, France, Germany or any G7 country? Someone on £35,000—the average earnings for those working full time—faces an income tax and national insurance bill of nearly £2,000 less than they would have done on the same real earnings back in 2010. Does the Chancellor agree that now he has changed the rules on residence and domicile, the Opposition’s unfunded spending plans could lead to higher taxes—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. These are topical questions, and I want to get to the Members who have not yet been called.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question. She is right that it is not just the lowest effective tax rate for someone on average earnings since 1975, but the lowest headline tax rate and the lowest tax rate in the G7. That is the fundamental divide in British politics: taxes have gone up, and on the Government Benches we do not think that we have to accept the status quo; on the Opposition Benches they do. Why is that? Because lower taxes mean higher growth.

Nia Griffith: A recent survey from the Debt Justice campaign has shown that 13% of adults have missed three or more bill or credit payments in the past six months, and 6.7 million people are now in financial difficulty. Does the Chancellor  accept that for millions of people, getting from one end of the month to the next under the Tories is a nightmarish struggle, and that people feel worse off because they are worse off?

Jeremy Hunt: May I gently correct the hon. Lady? As I said, living standards have risen by £1,700 per household since 2010, and the number of people in absolute poverty is down by 1.7 million. She is right to talk about the debt pressures that people face, which is why in the Budget we abolished the £90 fee for debt relief orders, having talked to Citizens Advice.

Will Quince: The proposed changes to wine duty will add huge costs and complexity to business. Further to my Westminster Hall debate, will my hon. Friend meet me and representatives of wine businesses to hear their concerns, and make permanent the easement that is due to end on 1 February next year?

Gareth Davies: My hon. Friend is talking about the largest and most significant reform of our alcohol duty system in 140 years. We are making it more simple by saying: the stronger the alcohol by volume, the more duty paid. We introduced the wine easement to give the wine industry two years to prepare for the changes. I continue to engage with the industry, and I will continue to engage with him.

Sarah Owen: Two years ago, P&O Ferries sacked 786 workers and replaced them with agency staff paid less than the minimum wage. After that fiasco, the Government promised to review all contracts with the company. Why is it that, since then, the Government have spent £900,000 directly with P&O Ferries? Why are the Conservatives so comfortable spending taxpayers’ money on rewarding the appalling treatment of working people?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me say to the hon. Lady, who I very much enjoyed working with on the Select Committee, that our record is 800 more people in work for every single day of Conservative government since 2010. What will wreck that is Labour’s new deal for workers, which the president of the CBI says will destroy the job-creating machine that the UK has become.

James Sunderland: I commend the Treasury for good fiscal policies that have resulted in inflation falling significantly since the pandemic. When might we see a commensurate fall in interest rates?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but Chancellors never comment on decisions made by the Bank of England on interest rates. What I can say is that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted at the Budget that inflation would fall to around target in the next few months. That gives the best possible prospect of interest rates starting to fall.

Angus MacNeil: Last night on BBC’s “Newsnight”, it was clear that the needs of Wales, in particular on health, are not met in the UK. When has the UK Government ever given England Barnett consequentials based on needs in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland? Surely the model of spending under which the Government in England decides for England, and everyone else gets a consequential of   that, must end. Nordic countries do not calculate spend as a percentage of their neighbours’ spend. Why is the spending of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland dependent on what England decides to spend?

Laura Trott: The Barnett consequentials formula is long established. It gives a clear framework, through which we can understand spending in the devolved nations. The hon. Gentleman will know that it means higher per-person funding in each of the devolved nations than in England.

Ranil Jayawardena: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is seeking to make the tax system more family friendly, including by collecting household data in the years ahead, but being family friendly includes looking after the family home. Sweden abolished inheritance tax in 2004. The result was a boom in entrepreneurship, economic growth and higher tax revenues. Will he, or one of the excellent ministerial team, meet me to discuss that further?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my right hon. Friend for his advocacy in support of families. We have had conversations, and I know that he very much welcomes the changes to the high-income child benefit charge and child benefit. We always keep taxes under review, and I am always delighted to meet him.

Diana R. Johnson: Does the Chancellor accept that he has caused a great deal of anxiety and further distrust among those who have been infected and affected by the contaminated   blood scandal by not making any provision in his Budget for compensation, although the recommendations for compensation were made to the Government last April?

Jeremy Hunt: I gently say to the right hon. Lady that I stand by every word I said when I gave evidence, twice, to the infected blood inquiry. The Government have an absolute moral responsibility, not just to pay the compensation owed, but to pay it as speedily as possible.

Therese Coffey: I would like to join the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) in discussing the closure of banks. Barclays bank, in particular, is both shameful and shameless in this regard. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need full transparency on the decisions made by Link and the Financial Conduct Authority? Something we learned yesterday that may be of interest to those in Chorley, Mr Speaker, is that the criteria take into consideration only the town plus areas within a 1 km circumference. That is not how the rural economy works. Will the Economic Secretary work with me to ensure that the criteria take into account the wider economy?

Bim Afolami: My right hon. Friend is another good example of a Member who is an excellent champion for her constituents, on this issue and so many others. As for her specific point, it is right for the industry to work out how it will increase provision and adapt the criteria for rural areas, but I will work with her to ensure that the banking hubs are rolled out in an equitable way, to rural as well as more urban areas.

Israel and Gaza

David Lammy: Urgent Question)  To ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the situation in Gaza and Israel.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question.
Israel suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history on 7 October last year. The scenes that we saw on that day were appalling, and Hamas’s disregard for civilian welfare continues today, more than five months later. We remember all the time those who are still being held hostage and their families, and we call once again for their immediate release. However, we naturally remain deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the impact of the conflict on all Palestinian civilians. We have borne witness to death and displacement on a vast scale. More than 1,700,000 people have had to leave their home, many on multiple occasions. We are deeply concerned about the growing risk of famine, exacerbated by the spread of disease, and, of course, about the terrible psychosocial impacts of the conflict, which will be felt for years to come.
We are totally committed to getting humanitarian aid to all those people in Gaza who desperately need it, doing so either ourselves or through UN agencies and British or other charities. We and our partners are pushing to get aid in through all feasible means, by land, sea and air. We have trebled our aid funding to the Occupied Palestinian Territories this year, providing just under £100 million, of which £70 million has been delivered as humanitarian assistance. On 13 March a further 150 tonnes of UK aid arrived in Gaza, including 840 family tents, 13,440 blankets, nearly 3,000 shelter kits and shelter fixing kits, 6,000 sleeping mats, and more than 3,000 dignity kits. A field hospital, provided through UK aid funding to UK-Med, arrived in Gaza from Manchester last Friday. This facility, staffed by UK and local medics, will be able to treat more than 100 patients a day. Along with Cyprus, the United States, the United Arab Emirates and others, Britain will help to deliver humanitarian aid by sea to a new temporary US military pier in Gaza via a maritime corridor from Cyprus.
We have made it clear, however, that air and sea deliveries cannot be a substitute for the delivery of aid through land routes. Only through those routes can the demand for the volume of aid that is now required be met. We continue to press Israel to open more land crossings for longer, and with fewer screening requirements. There is no doubt that land crossings are the most effective means of getting aid into Gaza, and Israel must do more. There is also no doubt that the best way to bring an end to the suffering is to agree an immediate humanitarian pause, and progress towards a sustainable, permanent ceasefire without a return to destruction, fighting and loss of life. Reaching that outcome is the focus of all our diplomatic efforts right now, and a goal that is shared by our international partners. We urge all sides to seize the opportunity, and continue negotiations to reach an agreement as soon as possible.

David Lammy: Yesterday, a UN-backed report revealed the shocking reality that famine in Gaza is imminent. Half the population is expected to face catastrophic levels of hunger—the highest number of people ever recorded as being in that category under this system. Only twice in 20 years have famine conditions been reached, but what distinguishes the horror in Gaza from what has come before is that it is not driven by drought or natural disaster; it is man-made. It is the consequence of war. It is the consequence of aid that is available not reaching those who need it. Food is piled up in trucks just a few kilometres away, while children in Gaza are starving. It is unbearable, and it must not go on.
International law is clear: Israel has an obligation to ensure the provision of aid. The binding measures ordered by the International Court of Justice require it. The world has demanded it for months, yet still aid flows are woefully inadequate. Aid actually fell by half between January and February. That is outrageous. The continued restrictions on aid flows are completely unacceptable, and must stop now—just as Hamas must release the hostages now. I do not doubt that the Minister agrees with me, but will he have the courage to say that the ICJ’s orders, including on aid, are binding, and that Israel must comply with them? Do the lawyers at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office believe that Israel is currently in compliance with its obligations?
Amid this accelerating hunger crisis, Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly approved plans for an offensive against Rafah. That would risk catastrophic humanitarian consequences. It would be a disaster for civilians and a strategic mistake. How are the Government working to prevent a further attack on Rafah? The truth is this: it will not be possible to address the crisis in Gaza if the fighting does not stop—and that is also the best way to secure the release of hostages. Will the Government finally join us and dozens of countries, and call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions and comments, which I will try to deal with more or less sequentially. First, he asked me about the reports of famine. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or IPC, report is clear: it says that famine is a very real scenario. We are doing everything we can to try to head that off, as I set out in my response to the urgent question. In addition to famine, there is also  the danger of disease, the lack of health services, and the acute danger from the lack of clean water and effective sanitation. We are doing everything we can to head off the appalling circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman set out.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the number of trucks. I can tell him that on Sunday, 192 trucks did get in, but that is woefully short of what is required. It is more than have been getting in in March, which has averaged 165 each day so far, and in February that figure was only 97—although he will be well aware that before the crisis, more than 500 trucks a day were getting in.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the ICJ. As everyone in the House will know, the ICJ judgment is binding. In respect of the offensive against Rafah, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, and indeed  all our allies, have consistently warned that an offensive against Rafah at this time would have the most appalling humanitarian consequences.
May I finish by taking the point that the right hon. Gentleman again made about a ceasefire? As far as I am aware, the position of the Labour Front Bench is still the same as the position of the Government: we are calling for an immediate pause so that we can get the hostages out and aid in—followed, we hope, by a sustainable ceasefire. That is what we are working towards.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Alicia Kearns: May I start by putting on the record my gratitude to the Minister for the Middle East, who made significant representations ahead of Ramadan to reduce tensions in Jerusalem and allow access to the Al-Aqsa mosque, which so far remains calm? The IPC report makes for breathtakingly difficult reading and the humanitarian situation is catastrophic, but it need not be. May I ask that we please push harder on truck entry from Jordan and ensure that it is fully operationalised, and can my right hon. Friend tell me when the House will be formally updated on whether Israel is demonstrating commitment to international humanitarian law?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about my colleague Lord Ahmad, the Minister for the Middle East, which I will pass on to him. In respect of international humanitarian law, we are going through the necessary legal processes, which are complex, but I can tell her that as soon as we are in a position to update the House on what we have set out clearly before, we will do so.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Brendan O'Hara: I take absolutely no satisfaction in saying that a month ago in this Chamber I said that innocent people will die because of Israel’s decision to prevent food from getting to those who need it. The reports of an imminent famine should surprise no one; we have all known that this deliberate, man-made famine was coming. The Foreign Affairs Committee has just returned from al-Arish, on the Egypt-Gaza border, where we saw hundreds and hundreds of lorryloads of food and aid waiting for permission to get into Gaza.
Let us be very clear about our language here: the people of Gaza are not starving; they are being starved. Does the Minister accept that there is no food shortage in the region? Does he accept that people are starving to death just 44 miles from Tel Aviv—the distance between Glasgow and Edinburgh—as a direct result of the Israeli siege and the premeditated decision to cut off food supplies? Does he also accept that starving a civilian population to death is a war crime? Finally, does he still believe that the UK is right, both legally and morally, to continue selling weapons to Israel?

Andrew Mitchell: On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, he is well aware of the arms sales regime that Britain adopts. As I have said to him before from the Dispatch Box, it is the toughest regime anywhere in the world.  [Interruption.] If I may say so, the difference between him and me is that he sees things as we would wish them to be, but we in the Government have to deal with them as they are. That is why we are taking so many steps to try to achieve the release of the hostages, and to get aid and support into Gaza.
One of the points the hon. Gentleman makes is right, and it is echoed by the shadow Foreign Secretary: the way to get aid into Gaza is by road and by truck. Of course we are doing everything we can to explore every way, including the maritime route and dropping aid from the air, but at the end of the day, aid is delivered by road. That is one reason why we are working so closely with Jordan to ensure that the aid route into Gaza by road is enhanced. At the end of the day, that is the right route to get aid in, and we are doing everything we can to try to make sure that it is pursued.

Oliver Heald: Last time, I asked my right hon. Friend about progress on trying to have a hostage transfer, because right at the core of this conflict is the visceral feeling of the Israelis that they want their people home, which anyone can understand. Has any progress been made, and would he like to update the House on where we are with that?

Andrew Mitchell: I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, which is why trying to get the hostages home and out of Gaza, and trying to get food in, are absolutely our twin objectives. In an extremely difficult circumstance, Britain is certainly right at the front of all countries in trying to achieve that. It would not be sensible for me to give the House a running commentary on hostage release, but he will have seen that negotiations have resumed in Qatar. Obviously, everyone in the House will hope that those negotiations are both speedy and successful.

Richard Burgon: A new independent multi-agency investigation by the United Nations into an Israeli military airstrike on a residential compound housing an emergency medical team—including from Medical Aid for Palestinians, a UK charity—has found that it most likely involved a 1,000 lb US-manufactured bomb fired from an F-16 jet. Those F-16s include parts supplied by the UK. Can the Minister today set out conclusively that no parts supplied by the UK were used to bomb a compound housing medical staff from a UK charity—will he rule that out?

Andrew Mitchell: The events that the hon. Gentleman describes are appalling, and what the British Government would say is that there must be a full and transparent inquiry and examination into how those events took place.

Andrew Percy: It remains incredible that some people in this place can barely utter a word of criticism of the Hamas regime in Gaza, who themselves are being accused of stealing and hoarding aid. With regard to the operation in Rafah, the Israeli Government have been very clear that hostages are being held there and that some of them have been subjected to sexual violence and other abuse. Are we saying to the Israeli Government that they have no right to go in and seek to rescue those hostages?

Andrew Mitchell: No. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been absolutely clear throughout that Israel has the right to self-defence, and what he is describing is covered by the right to self-defence. He sets out eloquently that absolute blame for what has happened lies with Hamas for perpetrating the events of 7 October, and once again he is absolutely right to set out that context.

Layla Moran: We are talking as if famine is imminent, but the fact is that the UN reports that 27 Palestinian children have already died from starvation and hunger. Josep Borrell has said that hunger should not be used as a weapon of war, and I hope that the Minister would agree. We need that ceasefire immediately. We need it to get the hostages out, we need it to get aid in, and we need it to get all the killing to stop. My question to the Minister is simple. What we are doing is not working, but there is one more thing we can do, which is to change how we vote at the Security Council. Will the UK stop abstaining and join the rest of the world in calling for that immediate ceasefire now?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady speaks on these matters with great knowledge and great sincerity, and I greatly respect what she says. The problem with calling for an immediate ceasefire is that it may salve our consciences but it is not deliverable, because neither side in this appalling brutality is willing to embrace a ceasefire. That is why the policy of the British Government is to argue in every way we can for a pause, so that we can get the hostages out and get aid in, which can then lead to a sustainable ceasefire. That is what we will continue to do in all international fora, including the United Nations.

Kit Malthouse: Over the past few months we have all listened to the Minister explaining that the Government have been begging, pleading with and pressing the Israeli Government to allow more aid in, but seemingly to little effect. Has he now reached the conclusion that the Israeli Government are wilfully obstructing the entrance of aid into the Gaza strip? If so, that would presumably be a breach of the International Court of Justice’s ruling, and indeed of international humanitarian law. What would be the consequence of that conclusion?

Andrew Mitchell: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend’s premise, because I do not think we are in the position to reach that judgment, but the point he is making is that it is essential to get more food, aid, support and medicine into Gaza, and every day the British Government are working intently to that end.

Beth Winter: Mr Speaker,
“Famine is a reality…the highest hunger level of anywhere else in the world in terms of total numbers…all manmade…A ceasefire is an absolute requirement”.
Those are the words of Matthew Hollingsworth, the country director of the World Food Programme, and of the UN Secretary-General. Starvation is indeed being used as a weapon of war. In Gaza, it is clear that Israel is engineering a famine for more than 2 million civilians. It is also clear that UK diplomacy has failed, so the Minister must now indicate what action the Government will take to escalate pressure to stop Israel’s military  assault, to demand a ceasefire and to ensure that emergency assistance is provided through UNWRA to those being starved to death.

Andrew Mitchell: I think that many people in Israel and elsewhere will find part of what the hon. Lady has said profoundly offensive. She is right to say that the characteristics of famine are present in Gaza, as I set out in my earlier response, and that is why we are doing everything we can, together with our allies, to get as much food and support into Gaza as possible.

Michael Ellis: Officials on the ground have stated that Hamas are appropriating —or misappropriating—as much as 60% of the humanit-arian aid entering the Gaza strip. This is part of a long pattern of prioritising fighters, abusing aid to produce rockets and using construction materials to build hundreds of miles of tunnels for their terror activities. We know that they do it; they have done it for years and they are doing it now. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that Hamas are flagrantly disregarding the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza, while Israel has been increasing the amount of aid going in exponentially?

Andrew Mitchell: I very much agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that Hamas are using ordinary people in Gaza as a human shield. It is utterly repugnant as well as completely against international humanitarian law and, like him, I condemn it.

Florence Eshalomi: Humanitarian organisations have been warning repeatedly that this would happen. A group of us met them last week, and when this conflict started I met Islamic Relief, which is based in my constituency. We now end up here, where we are seeing healthcare being attacked and systematically degraded. We are seeing no safe zones left. We are told of the onset of famine, and that the number of people being killed keeps rising. Will the Minister finally please listen to the calls of Members across this House, of the international communities and of the people working on the ground and call for an immediate ceasefire and unrestricted aid?

Andrew Mitchell: I have set out several times already today why calling for an immediate ceasefire may make us feel better but is not a practical resolution. That is why—[Interruption.] There is no difference between the analysis that the hon. Lady makes, and the NGOs in her constituency, and my analysis. The question is: what do we do about it? That is why Britain, along with our allies, is continuously, on a 24/7 basis, doing everything practical that we can to get more food and support into Gaza.

David Jones: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the floating pier to be constructed by the United States. What assurances has he received that the pier will be used solely for the delivery of humanitarian aid and not, as has been suggested, subsequently repurposed for military use?

Andrew Mitchell: It is early days yet to see precisely how that maritime initiative will deliver, but I do not believe that what my right hon. Friend fears will be allowed to  happen as we tackle that issue. We are giving strong support to all mechanisms for getting aid into Gaza—air, sea and land—but he, like me, will understand that the best mechanism is always by land.

Joanna Cherry: I do not think I have ever received as many emails of concern from constituents as I have about the situation in Gaza. As has already been said, over 500,000 Palestinians are at starvation levels and 27 children and three adults have died so far as a result of starvation and dehydration. In the words of Medical Aid for Palestinians:
“This is not happening because the rains have failed or there has been a poor harvest. It is because…the Israeli authorities refuse to allow enough food into Gaza”.
So I have this question for the Minister, and my Edinburgh South West constituents will be listening to the answer: does he agree that starvation as a weapon of war is a war crime?

Andrew Mitchell: The point that I hope the hon. and learned Lady will make to her Edinburgh constituents is that she and I, the Government and the whole House are intent on ensuring that more food and more support get into Gaza as rapidly as possible. That is what the Government are doing every day.

Neil O'Brien: I welcome the hard work that the Minister is doing to get more aid in, to bring an end to the fighting and to get the hostages released, but it is appalling to think that large numbers of innocent people, including children, are about to starve when there is aid just over the border. He is right that aid must flow across the border and that it is better to transport it in trucks, but if that is not possible, we must think of this like the Berlin airlift. We have to get aid in by sea and by airdrops. I welcome what the Americans are doing to drop aid on the shore, and we have to do whatever it takes to get the aid to the kids who are going to starve unless we get it to them.

Andrew Mitchell: I completely agree with the sentiments that my hon. Friend expresses so profoundly. He is right that every single mechanism must be explored, but he will know that the amount of aid we can drop from the air, the danger to those underneath and the danger of the aid being misappropriated and stolen by Hamas are very real difficulties. He will also be fully aware of the difficulties of maritime entry. That is why we are doing everything we can to argue for more points of entry into Gaza, more trucks and more land routes to get the aid in that is desperately needed.

Imran Hussain: The ICJ’s interim ruling makes it clear that the killing of Palestinians in Gaza must stop, but it has not; that immediate humanitarian aid must be allowed into Gaza, but it is not; and that the safety and security of civilians must be guaranteed, but it is not. As a result, more than 1 million Palestinians in Gaza are left starving and on the brink of famine, as confirmed by today’s IPC report.
The Israeli Government continue to flout international law by using starvation as a weapon of war. Children are starving, civilians are being killed and medical facilities are being attacked. What will it take for this Government to stand with international humanitarian law and oppose  the actions of the Israeli military? How many more innocent Palestinians must be massacred? How many more children must die through starvation? When will the Government call for an immediate ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: The one thing that is missing from the hon. Gentleman’s list is an urgent call for the release of the hostages.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, Israel must do more. We set out very clearly the five steps it needs to take: an immediate humanitarian pause; increased capacity for aid distribution inside Gaza; increased humanitarian access through land and maritime routes; expanded types of humanitarian assistance allowed into Gaza, such as shelter and items critical for infrastructure repair; and the resumption of electricity, water and telecommunications services. I hope that we can unite with everyone else in this House on going after those five key aims.

Henry Smith: The Israeli hostages must be released, and innocent Palestinians in Gaza must be supported. The Foreign Affairs Committee met Egyptian President el-Sisi when we were in the Gaza border region a fortnight ago. What particular support can this country provide to the Egyptians on delivering aid and averting a potential humanitarian and refugee crisis if the situation is not stabilised?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend and all the Select Committee members for their work, their visits and the powerful arguments they have added to those of the Government.
In response to my hon. Friend’s direct question, I met the head of the Egyptian Red Crescent in Egypt. We are in very close contact to make sure that British aid and British support enhance the excellent efforts that the Red Crescent is doing everything it possibly can to prosecute.

Ben Bradshaw: It is clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu has not taken the slightest notice of anything the British Government or even the Americans have been saying. Mrs Thatcher suspended arms sales to Israel in 1982, and Tony Blair did the same in 2002. What on earth would it take for this Government to follow their example?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the views of Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he will know that both our Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have engaged directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu to ensure that he is fully aware of what Britian thinks.
The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that Israel is a pluralist democracy—the only one in the region. He will be aware that Israeli Minister Benny Gantz, whom the Foreign Secretary recently met in London, has different views from Prime Minister Netanyahu. There are many different views, and Britain strongly supports the views that I have set out to the House today.
It is not for Ministers to make policy on arms sales and the arms regime from the Dispatch Box. It is for the proper due processes—as laid down and approved by Parliament, and as laid down in law—and that is what we follow.

Flick Drummond: Given the impending famine in Gaza, as outlined by the IPC report, will the UK align with the EU, Sweden, Australia, Canada and many other countries by restoring funding to UNRWA as the most effective way to urgently and immediately scale up the delivery of aid, food and medical supplies to Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: As my hon. Friend knows, we expect the report from the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services and, indeed, the interim report from Catherine Colonna, the former Foreign Minister of France, tomorrow, and we will read it with very great interest. Catherine Colonna is working with the Raoul Wallenberg Institute in Sweden, the Chr. Michelsen Institute in Norway and the Danish Institute for Human Rights, and we hope that her report will show a road map by which funding to UNRWA from Britain and many other countries can be restored.
My hon. Friend will equally be aware that UNRWA is fully funded for some months hence, and that British funding is fully paid up until into the next financial year.

Hywel Williams: It is estimated that people in northern Gaza have gone entire days and nights without heating at least 10 times over the last 30 days. Lord Cameron has said that UNRWA is the only body with a distribution network in Gaza, and the Minister mentions the report that will hopefully be available tomorrow. Will he assure the House that the UK Government will take a decision on resuming funding as soon as possible, and at least before the end of this month, which is only 12 days away?

Andrew Mitchell: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise timetable, but I can answer yes to his question about it being done as soon as we think it is possible to do so.

Mark Pritchard: Every life matters, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, another faith or no faith. At the centre of this crisis—a crisis started on 7 October by Hamas’s unprovoked attack on innocent civilians—whatever their faith or lack of faith, are children, women, men and vulnerable people who are suffering right now as we go off to our lunch or afternoon tea.
The Minister will know that I have been supportive of the Government, and that I will continue to be, but I hope he will note a change in tone. The figures vary, but it is estimated that 30,000 civilians and roughly 10,000 Hamas terrorists have been killed in Gaza. If it is true that 10,000 other terrorists are despicably hiding in Rafah among the civilian population, making it difficult to deliver aid, are we likely to see another 30,000 civilians killed so that Israel can find those terrorists? What is the British Government’s position? Is this something the Minister would support?

Andrew Mitchell: The awful symmetry that my right hon. Friend sets out is certainly one that no one wants to see. But the point he made so eloquently earlier in his question, setting out the views and feelings he holds, is widely reflected across the House, and I agree with him.

Kim Leadbeater: Half the population of Gaza is at risk of imminent famine, described by Melanie Ward of Medical Aid for Palestinians as meaning starvation, destitution, acute malnutrition and death. So does the Minister agree that all available aid corridors must be opened without delay and that there must be an immediate ceasefire, to enable food, water and urgent medical supplies to reach more than 1 million people in desperate need? All hostages must be released and this living hell must end.

Andrew Mitchell: I agree with almost everything the hon, Lady has said, but she will be aware, from what I have said today and previously, that calling for an immediate ceasefire is not, in the opinion of the British Government, a practical proposition. That is why we continually argue for a humanitarian pause, so that we can get the hostages out and food in, followed by a sustainable ceasefire.

Sara Britcliffe: Yesterday, the Israeli Prime Minister vowed to press ahead with the assault on Rafah, despite warnings from the international community. The prospect of millions in Rafah, who are there only as they desperately escape conflict to the north, being subjected to further suffering is intolerable. Will the Minister update the House on work that is going on with our international partners to make clear those concerns to the Israeli Government, while continuing to press Hamas to release the hostages?

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her call for the release of the hostages. In respect of any military operations in Rafah, may I draw her attention to the words of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister about the terrible dangers, loss of life and humanitarian consequences involved in that? She, like me and, I hope, everyone else in the House, will be hoping that no such operation goes ahead.

Clive Efford: I have no problem condemning Hamas, but I also have no problem condemning the use of starvation as an act of war. Israel has control on the ground in Gaza—enough to oversee the distribution of aid and to make sure it gets to the people who need it most. Do the Government agree that Israel, as the occupying force, has a legal duty to oversee the distribution of that aid?

Andrew Mitchell: The important point about the distribution of aid is that it should be able to get into Gaza, preferably through road and land routes. I set out for the House earlier the amounts that are getting in. Although they are increasing, they are nothing like adequate and do not come anywhere near the numbers before 7 October. That is why the Government are doing everything they can to augment those figures.

Steve Double: We all want to see a ceasefire that is sustainable and holds out the prospect of a lasting peace. But the very definition of the word “ceasefire” means that both sides have to agree to end hostilities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone calling for an immediate ceasefire needs to make it clear that that must include Hamas releasing the hostages, ceasing all hostilities and committing to a future peace?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is correct in what he says, but the important point, which I have repeatedly made in the House, is that in order to have a ceasefire we have to have agreement from those taking part in these actions that they will abide by a ceasefire. Israel has the right of self-defence and the right to protect itself from the appalling acts that Hamas perpetrated on 7 October ever taking place again. Hamas have made it clear that they wish to repeat those awful acts. Those things do not sound to me like a strong basis for having a ceasefire.

Clive Lewis: Three standout statements from today have been that starvation is being used as a weapon of war; Israel is provoking famine; and the UK is still selling arms to Israel. When will the Minister understand the damning nature of this and the damage it is doing to the UK’s international reputation—or, rather, what is left of it?

Andrew Mitchell: We have been clear that Israel has the right of self-defence but it must abide by international humanitarian law and the rules of war. Britain is one of the leading nations on finding ways to get aid into Gaza and helping our allies and other regional powers to do everything we can to get the hostages out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is proud of our country’s intervention in both those respects.

James Sunderland: I welcome the recent news that the UK will be sending a UK Aid field hospital to Gaza. What assurances have been sought and what assurances have been given in respect of sufficient force protection for all the staff there, some of whom may be British?

Andrew Mitchell: We are acutely conscious of the way in which humanitarian workers—not just in Gaza, but all around the world—put themselves, unarmed, in harm’s way for the sake of their fellow human beings. My hon. Friend is right to say that a field hospital provided by UK Aid funding to UK-Med arrived in Gaza from Manchester last Friday. That facility is staffed by UK and local medics, who will be able to treat more than 100 patients a day. We are acutely conscious of the contribution they are making and we do everything we can to ensure that they are protected.

Andy McDonald: To any reasonable and informed observer, the conduct of the war in Gaza by Israel contravenes basic international humanitarian law, in failing to distinguish between armed combatants and civilians, in using force beyond what is militarily necessary, and in offences against the prohibition of inflicting unnecessary injury, and it is wholly disproportionate. More than 100,000 Palestinians have now been killed or injured by Israeli forces in Gaza since last October. The Minister relies on Israel being a democracy that is capable of abiding by its legal obligations, but the overwhelming evidence is that it is not doing so, so what legal advice has he received about the complicity of and dangers to our country in failing to take sufficient action under the relevant treaties to which this country is a signatory, to deter such gross breaches of international humanitarian law?

Andrew Mitchell: As I said, we continue to assess Israel’s commitment and capability to comply with international humanitarian law. Those assessments are supported by a detailed evidence base, conflict analysis, reporting from charities, non-governmental organisations, international bodies and partner countries, statements and reports by the Israeli Government, and their track record of compliance. We take all of that into account in making our judgments. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that when it comes to targeting and military action, the Israel Defence Forces have their own lawyers embedded in those units, in much the same way of prudence that the British military do. That is not something we see in any other force in the region and it should give some confidence that the Israelis are seeking to abide by international humanitarian law.

Greg Smith: I welcome reports that Israel is opening new routes to directly deliver humanitarian aid into northern Gaza, amid a slowdown in UN operations and the widespread Hamas misappro-priation of that aid, which was referenced earlier. Significantly, at the same time, every day the IDF documents more and more Hamas infrastructure, weapons and missiles within civilian buildings—this week at al-Shifa Hospital and last month underneath UNRWA’s own headquarters. So is the grim reality not that as long as Hamas remain in control of Gaza, no matter how many times people cry for a ceasefire, there can be no peace?

Andrew Mitchell: As my hon. Friend sets out, it is clear that there is no place for Hamas in any future for Gaza. What happened on 7 October is uniquely appalling and I agree with him that until Hamas are removed from Gaza, the opportunity of peace is very limited.

Caroline Lucas: The UN’s special rapporteur has been crystal clear that arms sales to Israel for use in Gaza are unlawful, given the clear risk that they will be used to violate international humanitarian law. Yet the Government have consistently refused to disclose whether licences, for example, for F-35 fighter planes, have been reviewed, let alone amended. Will the Minister take the opportunity finally to give Parliament a straight answer on this? I do not want to be told that reviews are possible, because we know that. I want to know whether those reviews have happened and whether he is going to publish the details. I do not want him to tell us simply that the arms regime in the UK is the toughest in the world. I know that, but it gives no reassurance at all to the more than 1 million people facing famine in Gaza right now.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady asks me whether these matters are kept under review, and I can assure her that they are always kept under review. Equally, they are not decided at the whims of Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box; they are decided through a detailed, proper, legally governed, code-governed process, and that, as always, is what the Government are doing.

Zarah Sultana: As we debate this topic, children are starving to death in Gaza. Babies are so malnourished that UNICEF says that they do not have the energy to cry. Famine is not just imminent; it is happening, according to the head of Refugees International. This is not a natural disaster and it is not  accidental; it is intentional. Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war to collectively punish the Palestinian people. Israel blocks food from entering Gaza while bombing the people trapped inside. Will the Minister finally admit that officials have warned him that Israel is breaking international humanitarian law, or does his whole Department refuse to accept the truth that Israel is committing war crime after war crime in Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady uses florid language to describe these matters, but I hope that she will agree that the right thing is to do everything we possibly can to get the hostages out, support the people whom she so eloquently describes, and get support into Gaza, and that is what the Government are seeking to do.

Andrew Slaughter: Every month in Hammersmith, we hold “Ukrainian open house” to bring together all those supporting Ukrainian families who have fled that war. Every month, I am asked why there are not similar visa schemes to allow Palestinians to join their relatives in the UK, or to be hosted by families who wish to give them refuge here. What is the Government’s answer to that?

Andrew Mitchell: The Government’s answer is that the two positions are not analogous; they are very, very different. The hon. Member will know that we are doing everything we can to help individual cases in both instances, and we will continue to do so.

Amy Callaghan: Save the Children has reported that 1.1 million people across Gaza are facing catastrophic food insecurity at the hands of Israel, with one in three children acutely malnourished. Does the Minister agree that Israel’s tactic of starving the Palestinian people is a war crime?

Andrew Mitchell: As I have set out several times, we are doing all we can to make sure that the necessary food and resources get into Gaza, so the point that Save the Children makes in the evidence that the hon. Member read out is addressed, and we will continue to do precisely that.

Sam Tarry: The Minister will know that the UK supplies approximately 15% of the components used in F-35 stealth bombers currently being deployed in Gaza—the very same bombers allegedly being deployed from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. Earlier this month, a Dutch court ordered the country’s Government to block all exports of F-35 parts to Israel after concerns that they were being used, in violation of international law, during the ongoing war in Gaza. Will the Minister commit today to suspending the supply of F-35 components, and will he also confirm whether RAF bases are being used as a launch pad for bombing in Gaza, or indeed, in any military operations supportive of the IDF and the Israeli military forces?

Andrew Mitchell: I repeat that these decisions are not made at the whim of a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box. They are made in the normal way through a proper legal and coded practice. The Government will always operate on that basis in these situations.

Afzal Khan: Canada, Australia, Sweden and the European Union have now confirmed that they will restore the funding to UNWRA, refuting Israel’s position that 450 members of the agency’s staff had participated in the 7 October attack. With people dying from the imminent famine in Gaza and Palestinians being killed trying to get flour to feed their families, the international community holds a degree of responsibility for failing to stop this situation. In light of the catastrophic situation in Gaza, will the Minister commit to restarting and increasing this funding to UNRWA as a matter of urgency?

Andrew Mitchell: We have already increased funding significantly, including to UNRWA. The hon. Member will know that Britain is not at the moment in the position of having to make that decision, because we have fully funded what we said we would fund and are not due to provide any further money until the end of April. The answer to his question, I hope, will be contained in the report from the Office for Internal Oversight Services and from Catherine Colonna’s interim report, which we are expecting tomorrow. I know that, like me, he will read it with great care in the hope that it shows a suitable way ahead that we can all endorse.

Chris Stephens: Can the Minister try to help the House in understanding the Government’s position on who they believe is directly responsible for blocking the aid going into Gaza? What is the Government’s direct response to the comments of the UN Secretary-General, who has said that this is the highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger ever recorded by the integrated food security system anywhere?

Andrew Mitchell: Regardless of the accuracy of those final comments, there is no doubt at all, as I set out in my earlier responses, that the IPC report says that
“famine is a very real scenario”.
That is why we are trying to do everything we can, by every possible means, to make sure that aid gets into Gaza. I have explained to the House the difficulties of the air and maritime options, but those difficulties are not stopping us from pursuing those opportunities. At the end of the day, it is by agreement with Israel that we will get more trucks in, open up more points of entry, and find other ways of bringing aid in by road. We are pursuing all those matters and will continue to do so.

Sarah Owen: The need for an arms embargo in Israel was laid out by the International Court of Justice in January due to genocidal risk and serious harm to civilians. Since then, we have had no action from Ministers. UN experts have rightly called for hostage exchange and release, but they have also warned that the transfer of weapons or ammunition to Israel should cease immediately. We have seen more than 13,000 children killed, the destruction of 60% of civilian homes and hospitals destroyed. Water and food supplies are so low that Gaza is already in the midst of a catastrophic, man-made, state-made famine.
The Minister boasted moments ago that the UK has an arms licensing framework with some of the toughest regulations in the world. It is plain for all to see that that claim is in tatters. When will Ministers finally match  their words with actions, hold the Israeli Government to these standards, and hear the calls from aid agencies, the UN and my constituents to stop arms sales to Israel and to stop the onslaught against innocent Palestinian men, women and children?

Andrew Mitchell: As I have repeatedly said to the House, the issue of arms sales is dealt with in a legal and coded way. The Government have no intention of varying from that process. It has been shown, as I have said before, that we have the toughest regulatory regime in the world and we continually keep it under review. None the less, it is important that these things are done properly and in accordance with the rules laid down by Parliament and laid down by the law, and we will not vary that.
In respect of the early part of the hon. Member’s question, I agree that it is essential that we are able to get more supplies into Gaza. We spend all our time arguing for new ways of entry and for new opportunities to get aid in, but, as I set out in our five key aims, we want the resumption of electricity, water and telecommunication services as well as infrastructure repair to start as soon as possible.

John Martin McDonnell: Across the House, we are all desperate to see the release of the hostages, but the negotiations for their release are not aided by the treatment of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and detention centres. The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, has reported that 27 Palestinian detainees have died in Israeli custody since the war and some during direct questioning. It has reported beatings, abuse, torture, sexual assault, and prisoners being prevented access to doctors, lawyers and medication. A magistrate in Jerusalem has reported that the prisoners are detained in cages not fit for human beings. Now we have had the family of Marwan Barghouti, the Palestinian leader who many hope will secure peace, say that he has been beaten with clubs by guards. Will the Minister demand that the Israeli Government provide access to the detention centres and prisons for humanitarian bodies to investigate these abuses and bring forward a report, which, hopefully, will end the abuse and assist in the negotiations for the release of the hostages?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman has put his finger specifically on the treatment of detainees. As he will be aware, the treatment of detainees is governed by international humanitarian law and the Geneva convention. He will have seen what the Foreign Secretary has said about the treatment of detainees, and Britain has consistently called for an inquiry, and for transparency in that inquiry, into any alleged abuses.

Liam Byrne: The Minister has laid great weight this afternoon on the legal and coded process that governs the export of arms, but a new international humanitarian law compliance assessment process cell has been created in his Department. Will he publish every assessment that that cell has made of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, and will he tell the House whether the threshold has now been reached to review or cancel any extant open general export licence for arms sales?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman has served at a senior level in government and knows what Governments do and do not publish. However, he can rest assured that when we receive advice on international humanitarian law, we look at it extremely carefully, and when the Law Officers make their judgments on this matter, we come to the House and update it. That is what we will do in due course.

Christine Jardine: Many of us in this place have been calling since November for the release of the hostages, the removal of Hamas, an immediate bilateral ceasefire, and humanitarian aid. Sometimes, it seems the only thing that has changed is that the situation has got worse for people in Gaza. My constituents write to me constantly. They feel that the Israeli Government are ignoring pleas, and that the people of Palestine have been abandoned. The Minister said that he would do whatever it took in this situation —I have every respect for him and believe him when he says that.
Does the Minister accept that one of the biggest barriers to peace is illegal Israeli settlement in the west bank? Recently, there were sanctions against four Israeli settlers who had committed human rights abuses against Palestinians. The Liberal Democrats hope that that is just the start. Will the UK Government consider sanctioning Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who promote that extremist agenda, and all the settler movements connected to them in a way that finally makes a difference to what is happening?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady will be aware that Britain has consistently condemned settler violence. We have made it clear that we expect those responsible to be caught, arrested, tried and punished for it, and we will continue to do so. As she mentions, four settlers have been sanctioned. We do not discuss on the Floor of the House the operations of the sanctions regime, but she may rest assured that the opinion of the Government is that the settlements and the acts that she described are illegal, and we will do everything we can to ensure that they stop.

Holly Lynch: As MPs from right across the House have said this afternoon, children in Gaza are starving—they are being starved—and we cannot tolerate it. If the UK’s standing on the rules-based order and international humanitarian law is to be worth anything around the world, the ICJ ruling must be binding, and there must be consequences for failure to comply with it. What are those consequences?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady says that people are starving in Gaza. Everyone agrees that that is the case. The issue is what we can constructively do to bring about an end to the very worrying starvation figures that have been revealed this week. We are doing and will continue to do everything we can. I have set out at some length to the House the various different ways in which we are trying to achieve that.

Andrew Gwynne: I will follow on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), which went to the heart of the situation. My constituents are heartbroken by the images that they are being sent from Gaza of  children dying of hunger, and they want to know why the world is largely doing nothing to help them. I believe in the rules-based system, which is under enormous strain right now from a variety of different quarters. International law matters, and we must show leadership when it comes to the rulings of international institutions such as the ICJ. What is Britain doing to ensure that Israel and other parties hold to the rule of international law and the judgments of the ICJ?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman says that his constituents are heartbroken by what is happening; we are all heartbroken by what is happening. The issue is what we do about it. I have set out throughout the course of the last hour a number of ways in which Britain is showing real leadership in trying to address the humanitarian situation and to ensure that negotiations to get the hostages out are successful. We will, along with our allies, continue to bend every sinew to ensure that everything that can be done is done.

Deidre Brock: The Minister spoke of the detailed evidence that his Government are relying on, but the world’s media are prevented from reporting inside Gaza almost entirely. If we saw the daily reality of life there in more detail, I suspect the international pressure on Israel would be even stronger. What are the UK Government doing to ensure that any deliberate targeting of journalists—particularly Palestinian journalists—who are protected under international humanitarian law, is being passed on to the International Criminal Court for its investigation into war crimes?

Andrew Mitchell: As I have set out, in the IDF—as in the British military—the issue of targeting is, unusually, governed by legal advice. Lawyers are embedded with the people who are making those decisions. In respect of the media, any such targeting would be absolutely outrageous. I pay tribute to the brave journalists who are ensuring that accurate reporting comes back from Gaza and the middle east.

Khalid Mahmood: I want to make it clear that I have opposed Hamas since 2007, I deplore the action taken on 7 October, and I totally believe that the hostages on both sides must be released. However, I agree with the Minister that the Israeli blockade is leading to famine and to death and displacement. Young children are dying of malnutrition and hunger. He says continually that the two sides will not sit down together. Why, then, does he not put a Security Council resolution to the United Nations to ensure that something is done on an international level, such as putting in a peacekeeping force to deal with the issue and allow people to continue normal lives?

Andrew Mitchell: The House will understand that the issue of a policing force inside Gaza is premature. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Hamas and for what he said about deploring all the things that Hamas have done—I agree with him about that. He sets out the scale of humanitarian need. Throughout this urgent question, I have been setting  out how Britain is, along with our allies, seeking to help move the dial to get more aid and support into Gaza and get the hostages out.
In terms of the United Nations Security Council and its resolutions, the hon. Gentleman will know that Britain is one of the leading architects of those resolutions in our role as one of the permanent five in New York. I pay tribute to Barbara Woodward, Britain’s permanent representative at the United Nations. The British mission at the UN is working ceaselessly to ensure that there  is agreement on resolutions that can help bring an  end to this.

Chris Law: The unfolding famine is entirely man-made and is being used as a weapon of war by Israel. It is a war crime, and those who continue to support that collective punishment and deny aid are complicit in this unfolding tragedy. Last week, Janez Lenarčič, head of humanitarian aid and crisis management at the European Commission, said that neither he nor any other UNRWA donor had been presented by Israel with any evidence of UNRWA involvement in the 7 October attacks. When the International Development Committee visited northern Egypt recently and spoke to the head of UNRWA, they also had no evidence, so my question is very simple: has the Minister been presented with any evidence to support his decision to pause the UK’s life-or-death funding to UNRWA?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the evidence that has been put before the international community, and will know that it was sufficiently strong for the head of UNRWA to immediately act against some of his officials. On all these matters, tomorrow we will hear the interim report from Catherine Colonna, the former French Foreign Minister. We look forward to studying that report when we have a chance to read it, in the hope that it will take matters forward.

Stella Creasy: As the Minister will be aware, thousands across Israel have protested in opposition to the approach that Prime Minister Netanyahu is taking, including the hostage families—they know that the situation in Gaza will not help release their family members. People in Israel see what is happening to the Palestinians; they hear the words of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, who has said today that what is happening and Israel’s continuing restrictions on aid
“may amount to the use of starvation as a method of war”.
He is explicit about that and the concerns that it raises.  I understand the Minister telling us that he does not want to make policy from the Dispatch Box, but will he tell us whether he has sought explicit legal advice on the question of whether Israel is now committing a war crime in its use of starvation—yes or no?

Andrew Mitchell: We are always in receipt of legal advice, and we act on it. When we receive it, we take the necessary steps, as the hon. Lady would expect.
In the first part of her question, the hon. Lady she set out a point that I was making earlier, more eloquently than I did: Israel is a pluralist democracy. There are different views, and I tweeted last weekend about the extraordinary, moving work being done by two people  who had come together from opposite sides, whose families had suffered so grievously in the aftermath of  7 October. It is that pluralist democracy that gives us the chance that accountability will be properly followed in Israel, which—as I say—is the only pluralist democracy in that part of the world.

Navendu Mishra: The IPC report published today shows that one in three children under two years old in the north of Gaza is now acutely malnourished. In February, that figure was one in six. This month, people of Muslim faith across the world will be observing Ramadan. The situation in Gaza is dire and urgent, so will the Minister call for an immediate ceasefire to ensure that no civilian goes hungry, malnour-ished or without medical support in Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman and I both share the desire that people should not go hungry in Gaza. That is why the Government, along with our allies, are working so hard to get more food in. We will continue to do everything we possibly can to make sure that the suffering that has been so eloquently set out by Members from all parts of the House is brought to an end as soon as possible.

Alison Thewliss: Does the deliberate starvation of a civilian population constitute a war crime—yes or no?

Andrew Mitchell: There would be, I think, very serious doubt about the term “deliberate starvation”, so I am unable to give a yes or no answer to the hon. Lady’s question.

Diana R. Johnson: We all know that behind Hamas sits the malign power of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The same is true of Hezbollah and the Houthis. With the Foreign Secretary having been in post for five months, can the Minister update the House on what progress has been made on proscribing the IRGC?

Andrew Mitchell: As the right hon. Lady knows, the issue of proscription is not one that we discuss on the Floor of the House, but the arguments for and against are kept under very close review by the Government and will continue to be kept under review.

Tan Dhesi: To deal with the grave and worsening humanitarian crisis for the sake of the dying children and innocent civilians as Palestinians desperately try to survive and observe the holy month of Ramadan, it is imperative that both sides agree to an immediate ceasefire, which is what I recently voted for in Parliament. Aid in huge quantities is critical, and any attempts by the Israeli Government to block it must be condemned, so what are the UK Government doing to achieve an immediate ceasefire, get hostages released, and put pressure on the Israeli Government to allow unimpeded aid into Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the words of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary about the absolute imperative of getting more aid and humanitarian supplies into Gaza. I have answered the point about an immediate ceasefire on a number of  occasions over the past hour and a quarter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in order to get a ceasefire, both sides in this terrible conflict need to agree to one, and there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Hamas have any intention of a ceasefire—indeed, they have made absolutely clear that they wish to perpetrate once again the terrible events that took place on 7 October.

Andrew Bridgen: Hamas’s cold-blooded murder of at least 1,300 Israeli civilians on 7 October was truly abhorrent, but sadly, those horrific numbers are now dwarfed by the number of innocents of all faiths who have had their lives taken away from them in Gaza. I welcome the fact that the Government are moving on their position, but I believe they are going to have to move further and faster to prevent a catastrophe and further loss of innocent lives. The Minister has stated that the International Court of Justice ruling is binding; will he inform the House how that ruling can be enforced?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman’s point about the Government moving on their policy is not true. Basically, the Government have made it clear throughout that we will do everything we possibly can to achieve a pause, so that we can help get the hostages out and food and support into Gaza. We are continuing to do everything we can, night and day, to reach that conclusion.

Jessica Morden: The head of the UN, António Guterres, the head of security policy for the EU, Josep Borrell, and multiple accounts on the BBC have all indicated that famine is under way. The Minister has repeatedly said this afternoon that he is moving the dial, and that the Government are doing everything they can. My constituents would like to understand how he is doing absolutely everything he can and how he is showing leadership to ensure that all routes are opened by Israel and that we avoid further human catastrophe. Can he explain that in very practical terms?

Andrew Mitchell: I have set out for the House the work that we are doing, in respect of both the maritime corridor and supporting food and medical supplies delivered from the air. At the end of the day, though, those are inevitably going to be relatively small amounts, particularly from the air. The answer is to try to open up more access points into Gaza by road and to make sure that trucks flow more easily through those access points. The British Government have been doing everything we possibly can with our allies to ensure we take that agenda forward, and we will continue to do so. As I  set out, a number of tonnes of aid arrived in Gaza on 13 March; a very large number of family tents, blankets, shelter kits, shelter fixing kits, sleeping mats and dignity kits went in. That is on top of the enormous amount of aid we have provided previously to UNRWA, and also to UNICEF, the Egyptian Red Crescent and to other NGOs, charities and medical organisations that are doing everything they can to try to alleviate the suffering in Gaza.

Chi Onwurah: I am absolutely clear that the hostages must be released.  I am also absolutely clear that the situation in Gaza has gone from dire to horrendous to cataclysmic, and my  constituents do not understand why it is being allowed to continue. The majority leader in the US Senate has identified Netanyahu’s ultra right-wing Government as a barrier to peace, and the European Union foreign policy chief has said that Israel, one of the richest and most militarily powerful nations in the world, is “provoking famine”. So will the Minister say clearly that it is unacceptable for Israel to prevent aid from entering Gaza? Will he also say clearly what he is actually doing about it—what demands he is making of Israel, what consequences he is setting out to Israel for its actions—beyond wringing his hands?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Member for her clarity on the issue of the hostages. She asks why all of this is being allowed to continue. I would point out to her, as I have consistently this afternoon, that the Government, along with our allies, are doing everything we possibly can to stop it continuing. She asks me about what else we can do to try to ensure that it does not continue. I would point her to the comments I made in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary about all the different ways in which Britain, along with our allies, is seeking to alleviate the suffering taking place in Gaza.

Alan Brown: Children in Gaza are dying at the fastest rate the world has ever seen, according to the IPC report. Instead of calling out Israel for its culpability, the Government still refuse to sign UN resolutions and they still sell arms to Israel. Their great wheeze is to try to find ways to bypass the Israeli blockade by delivering aid by air or by sea, which is clearly not going to get enough aid in. The Government are not going to admit how absurd their position is, but will the Minister answer this directly: have the Government received legal advice that Israel’s hindering aid getting into Gaza violates international law?

Andrew Mitchell: The Government keep our legal advice under review at all times. The current legal advice is that Israel has both the capacity and the will to abide by international humanitarian law, and if that position changes as a result of the advice of the Government lawyers, we will of course make that clear to the House.

Debbie Abrahams: We heard this morning how half the population in Gaza—and this is the first time in modern history that such a large population has been affected—is being subjected to famine. We also heard about the absolute imperative that we as a country, and also our allies, obey and abide by international law. Given that, and that the Minister has said that he and his Government are doing all they can, can I ask on behalf of everybody here—and, most importantly, on behalf of my constituents, because they do not understand—what exactly that is, and in apologising for being so blunt, why it seems to be so ineffective?

Andrew Mitchell: On the hon. Lady’s first point, everyone must abide by international humanitarian law, and Britain is doing everything it can to ensure that the rules of war and international humanitarian law are respected. She asks why our efforts are “so ineffective”. I would argue with her wording, but this is not a situation that Britain  is tackling alone. All of us—the Americans, the European Union and those across the region—are doing our very best to ameliorate the suffering going on in Gaza. It is a collective effort, and Britain will not be found wanting in continuing to exert all the pressure we can, along with our allies, to ensure that this situation is brought to a conclusion.

Emma Hardy: The horrific famine in Gaza is made even worse by the fact that we know it is man-made. There is no agency better than UNRWA at delivering the small amount of aid that there is currently. I have listened to the Minister’s responses, and I have heard him tell the House that there is a report due out tomorrow and that funding from the UK Government remains in place until the end of April, but the end of April is now 43 days away. How will the Minister ensure that there is no break in funding for UNRWA? Will the Government urgently resume the funding so that UNRWA can deliver what little aid there is to the people who so desperately need it?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady is right that UNRWA has the logistics hubs, warehouses, vehicles and infrastructure that are essential for the delivery of aid in Gaza, and everyone understands that. She asks me whether I can guarantee that we will be able to resume funding at the end of April. I very much hope that will be the case. It will be very much dependent on the report tomorrow from the former French Foreign Minister, and indeed on that from the United Nations. We are doing everything we can to advance the case to make sure that we can resume funding when it is possible. I will update the House in due course on the results of those reports and on the judgment that the British Government make at that point.

Rachael Maskell: This week, Prime Minister Netanyahu confirmed with his Cabinet that he plans to proceed with an operation in Rafah. We know this assault will end in the killing of many civilians, including children, and it will of course impede aid flowing into Rafah, which is the main place where aid now enters Gaza. The consequences will be catastrophic. How is the Minister using the ICJ and sanctions to stop further assaults in Gaza, not least in the light of the comments from the Prime Minister of Israel that
“no international pressure will stop Israel”?

Andrew Mitchell: On military operations in Rafah, the hon. Lady will have heard what the Prime Minister has said and the advice he has given to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and she will have heard what the Foreign Secretary has said very clearly indeed. She will have heard what the European Union has said, and indeed what President Biden has said. We very much hope that the Israeli Government and Prime Minister Netanyahu will heed these words, which come not from enemies of Israel, but from friends of Israel.

Matt Western: One million people face the imminent prospect of famine. Matthew Hollingworth, the country director of the United Nations World Food Programme has confirmed that the situation is reversible. In fact, in January, the  Foreign Secretary—the Minister’s boss—confirmed that Israel has a legal obligation as the occupying power to provide food and water to the Gazans. Does the Minister agree that the Israeli Government must allow the full reopening of land bridges into Gaza, and that they should recommence the issuing of new visas for humanitarian workers? Finally, will he confirm whether his Government are in lockstep with Chuck Schumer and President Biden, or with Prime Minister Netanyahu?

Andrew Mitchell: We are working incredibly closely at all levels with the American Administration. The hon. Member asks about new visas. We have consistently urged the Israeli Government to grant the UN visas and, indeed, renew visas as swiftly as possible. He is quite right about the effects of famine being reversible, and that is why Britain is seeking to ensure that aid in much greater amounts gets in by road, sea and air in every way we possibly can.

Paula Barker: Famine in Gaza is imminent and the death toll is rising. Like many, including the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, I cannot help but be concerned that continued restriction of aid, and therefore starvation, is being used by the Israeli Government. The holy month of Ramadan risks turning into a further tragedy for millions of Palestinians facing hunger and disease. Stern words just are not cutting it with Netanyahu, so what will it take for the Government to go further, and stop the export and sales of weapons to the Israeli Government? I respect the Minister for saying that he cannot make up policy on the hoof at the Dispatch Box, but when will he be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and give this House answers to the serious questions on arms sales, unimpeded aid, the restoration of UNRWA funding and potential sanctions?

Andrew Mitchell: On all those matters, I have been clear to the House about where the Government stand and their direction of travel. The underlying points the hon. Lady makes are the reason why we are arguing with such force and passion for a humanitarian pause in which we could get resources into Gaza and get the hostages out, and such a pause could lead to a sustainable ceasefire. That is what the Government will continue to do.

James Murray: We urgently need an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, a massive surge in aid, all hostages released, and a lasting peace with a two-state solution. I recently met with Medical Aid for Palestinians to discuss the desperate and unbearable humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Can the Minister explain the details of what the UK Government are doing to press for the necessary food and aid to get into Gaza and, critically, for it to be distributed there rapidly?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right in his final point about the logistical difficulties. We are working with all the resources we can to make sure that the aid can be delivered and is not siphoned off, pilfered or attacked by people who are very short of food and  desperate to get it. He sets out the importance of a humanitarian pause, hostages being released, and a new political vision of the future for Palestine. Those three things are very much at the heart of what the British Government are seeking to achieve.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions, and his focus on finding a lasting ceasefire and peace, because that is what everyone in this House wants. Will he outline what aid and assistance have been provided to those in the Gaza area who can use arable land to attempt to grow food for community use? Can we in this place do anything more to provide self-sustaining aid?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The issue of arable land use inevitably takes a bit of a back seat at the moment because of the difficulty growing crops in Gaza, but in a future settlement, and in building towards a two-state solution, that would definitely be part of reconstruction. I very much accept the wisdom of what the hon. Gentleman says on these matters, and I am sure that the issue will be addressed when we reach that stage. I point out to him, as I have mentioned to the House before, that the progress made at Oslo was on the back of appalling events in the second intifada, and we must hope that, in spite of the desperate current events, we are able to lift people’s eyes to the political possibilities of a two-state solution in which both Palestine and Israel live in peace behind secure borders. Ensuring that that happens, when the moment comes, is the central aim of the British Government, and a great deal of work and planning is going into what such an initiative would look like.

Olivia Blake: Over 1 million people in northern Gaza are on the verge of famine, and aid groups are issuing dire warnings of catastrophic levels of hunger and man-made starvation. Just last week, the UN reported that humanitarian aid is being denied or postponed by Israeli authorities. We are not powerless—this Government can and should take action—so what else can the Government do to lobby the Israeli Government on allowing more aid to enter Gaza as a matter of urgency? Do Ministers agree that we need a ceasefire now, and that is the best way to get the release of hostages?

Andrew Mitchell: I set out to the House and for the hon. Lady the issues around a ceasefire, and why it is the view of the Government and many others that a pause for humanitarian purposes could lead to a sustainable ceasefire. That is the sensible way to proceed. She asks what more the British Government and others could be doing. I submit that Britain is doing everything it possibly can to achieve aims that are commonly held across this House: bringing an end to the situation in Gaza; getting the hostages home; and getting aid and support into Gaza. I reassure the hon. Lady and the House that we will continue to do everything we can, night and day, until we reach those objectives.

Points of Order

2.4 pm

Diana R. Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 19 September 2023, the chair of the Brook House inquiry, Kate Eves, published her report on the mistreatment of individuals detained at the Brook House immigration removal centre. The report contained shocking accounts of incidents at Brook House, including serious problems with the way that force was used by detention staff on detained people. These accounts were so disturbing that the Select Committee on Home Affairs held a private session with the chair of the inquiry. I have met the Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group, and later this week we will visit Brook House to discover what progress has been made. We will also hold an oral evidence session on the subject after the Easter recess.
Although we welcome the Government’s written response to the Brook House inquiry today, I am very disappointed that the Home Office chose not to update the House through an oral statement, but instead used a written ministerial statement. The matters raised in the report are very serious indeed, and Members should have the right to question the Minister on the situation at Brook House and the action that the Home Office will take. May I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we can ensure that Home Office Ministers are brought to the House at the earliest opportunity to answer questions?

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who Chairs the Select Committee on Home Affairs, for giving me notice of her point of order. As she points out, the Government have not so far sought to make an oral statement to the House on this issue, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her comments and will pass them back, perhaps to Home Office Ministers and officials. In the meantime, the right hon. Lady is a very experienced Member of the House, and I am sure that she will be aware of the various options open to her in the Chamber and Westminster Hall, and indeed through her Select Committee.

Martin Docherty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 7 January 2020, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) led an Adjournment debate in this House on the UK special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. I attended that debate not only as a constituency MP, but as the brother of someone who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who, like the majority of the armed forces, did so diligently and with the utmost professionalism. In response to my hon. Friend, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who I have informed of this point of order, stated:
“There have been allegations made by individuals, a very small number of whom worked within the investigative teams.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2020; Vol. 669, c. 362.]
Only last month, the Minister submitted evidence, not only in person but in writing, to the independent inquiry on the deployment of special forces in Afghanistan, in which they stated that they had inadvertently misled Members of this House by reading out statements that they later found to be incorrect. Indeed, that was also  communicated through a letter that they sent in August 2020 to the then Secretary of State—it was part of the evidence submitted last month—which states:
“That I have been allowed to read out statements to the House of Commons that individuals in strategic appointments in the department knew to be incorrect is completely unacceptable. These were clearly not complaints by ‘a small number of individuals within the investigations team’ but widespread.
I have continually downplayed these allegations in public, too, to support”
the special forces
“and the department.”
The Minister had the opportunity to correct the record when the House returned from the summer 2020 recess, but they have yet to do so in this Chamber.
You may correct me, Madam Deputy Speaker—I hope you will not—but the ministerial code is very perjink that it is of paramount importance that Ministers of the Crown be accurate and truthful in giving information to the House. It states that Ministers of the Crown must correct
“any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.
Indeed, the Minister stated recently on social media platforms:
“I am an elected politician who serves the public. I am not an appointed official and my position relies on my reputation and my ability to sustain public confidence in my character.”
I wonder whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, agree with the former chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, who advised the House that the Minister may have been guilty of
“letting the House of Commons down”.
It sounds like major incompetence.
The House of Commons is based on trust in the word of Ministers of the Crown, and trust that what Ministers say is true. If they promise to do something, it undermines the integrity of the political system when they do not keep to their word. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise how the Office of the Speaker will ensure that after more than three and a half years, the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to correct the record and apologise to the House, and to those members of the armed forces who conduct themselves in a professional manner?

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order, and for confirming that he has informed the right hon. Member to whom he referred that he intended to raise this issue. Mr Speaker has always been clear that if Ministers feel that the record needs to be corrected, they should do so as quickly as possible, but it is also true that Ministers are responsible for what they say in the Chamber—hence why they should correct the record if there is a problem. The operation of the ministerial code is not a matter for the Chair, and I hope that the hon. Member understands that. Having said that, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concerns, and will feed them back. If the Minister considers a correction is necessary, one will be forthcoming. I think we will leave it at that.

Sarah Olney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, in this House, I called on the Government to not only publish their contingency plan in the event of Thames Water’s financial collapse, but go a step further and put this failed,  polluting giant into special administration. In preparation for that debate, I tabled a number of named day written parliamentary questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, scheduled for publication on Friday 15 March, yet I still have not received—[Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. I have to listen carefully to Members, so if others could refrain from chatting, that would be helpful.

Sarah Olney: I still have not received a response to those questions, two days after the deadline. The questions I asked were: how many meetings the permanent secretary of the Department has held with Thames Water on Operation Timber in the past 12 months; if the Secretary of State will the publish the minutes of meetings that officials in his Department have had with Thames Water on Operation Timber in each of the last six months; and when the permanent secretary of his Department last met officials from Thames Water to discuss Operation Timber. The continued failure of this Conservative Government to be transparent about their rescue plans for Thames Water amounts to nothing short of a cover-up. It is now crucial to raise this issue in the Chamber through a point of order. What steps can I take to receive a response from the Department to my questions?

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order, and I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members, whether they are here or not, would agree that answers to parliamentary questions should be given promptly. Again, I know that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her point of order. She may wish to take up any undue delay in ministerial answers with the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), who chairs the Procedure Committee, which keeps under review departmental performance on answering questions. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) is lucky that the Chair of that Committee happens to be in the Chamber, and I can see that she has heard what the hon. Lady has had to say.

Stella Creasy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your assistance on a matter that many MPs will understand through that bread and butter work that we do on behalf of our constituents. I have informed the Minister’s office of my intention to raise this matter. Last December the Minister for Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), said that he
“would love to sit down with the hon. Lady to talk through the details of the cases.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 636.]
Those were the cases of two constituents who are British citizens but whose families are stuck in Pakistan, even though they served in support of our armed forces in Afghanistan. Their families are at high risk of harm.
I am yet to have that meeting with the Minister. Indeed, the meeting has been cancelled several times, and now my office has been told that we probably need to wait until another Minister is appointed. I wonder whether the Secretary of State or Ministers could help. We all know that Ministers are busy and we understand  that these things are complicated, but this is a life-or-death situation for my constituents and I am at a loss as to how to assist them, four months on from the original query. Can Ministers advise on how best to make progress?

Rosie Winterton: Can the hon. Lady just clarify in which Department the Minister sits?

Stella Creasy: The Ministry of Defence.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She has successfully shone a light on what has happened in this instance. I see that there is a Defence Minister on the Treasury Bench, so I am sure that her comments will be fed back and hope that the meeting to which she refers can take place accordingly. I think she has achieved her objective of highlighting the problem.

John Martin McDonnell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sat through today’s urgent question and listened to the various questions raised on the supply of arms to Israel. It is clear that the Government are continuing to supply arms to Israel, some of which will have been used in the attacks on Gaza. Some of those attacks have been judged to be contrary to the International Court of Justice judgment and are potentially war crimes. Can I ask Mr Speaker to seek and publish legal advice on the legal responsibilities of individuals of this House in holding the Government to account to prevent complicity in those war crimes, so that we are all aware of our responsibilities and the role we have to play, as this Government receive their authority from this Chamber?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He did not give me notice of it, so I have been unable to seek advice on the legal point he raises. I am unclear on whether he is asking Mr Speaker to publish legal advice.

John Martin McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise; I could not give notice of my point of order because it arises from the urgent question, which has only just concluded. I am asking Mr Speaker to seek legal advice on our behalf and to publish it, because it is important that we all know our legal responsibilities in respect of the potential complicity of this Government in war crimes.

Rosie Winterton: My initial response is that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), has come here and answered a number of questions on the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises. The Minister is indicating that he may be able to help me out a little on legal advice. It feels highly unusual for Mr Speaker to seek legal advice on an issue affecting the Government, because the Government obviously get their own legal advice. Perhaps we could hear from the Minister before going any further.

Andrew Mitchell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is an extremely experienced Member of the House, is seeking—ingeniously—to continue debate on the subject of the urgent question. He knows perfectly well that the Government operate under the rule of law. When it  comes to arms sales, the arms regime and the work of the arms inspection committee, all those matters are determined by the law of the land. When it comes to international humanitarian law, the position is precisely the same: the Government take advice from the Law Officers, who are charged with advising us on these matters, and the Government act on that advice.

John Martin McDonnell: rose—

Rosie Winterton: That is the point that I was trying to make, but obviously the Minister, who I am sure often works with legal advisers, was able to make it much more coherently. I am not sure that we can pursue this much further. I will let the right hon. Gentleman have one more go, but I think that we will have reached the end of the questioning after this.

John Martin McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not seeking to extend the debate at all; this is an incredibly serious point. The Minister just said that the Government are operating under the rule of law, but some of us believe that is not true any more, because of how the ICJ judgment was phrased. So we need advice as individual Members, separate from the Government—and it is the Speaker’s responsibility to ensure that we are properly advised—about our responsibilities when we believe there is potential complicity in war crime. All I seek is that advice should be sought and published.

Rosie Winterton: As I said, the Government perform within the legal advice that they receive, not least from the Attorney General. Separate legal proceedings are going through the ICJ, and I do not think it is for Members of the House to interfere in that process either. The right hon. Gentleman will know that individual Members of the House have the right to seek legal advice. His comments will have been heard, and if there is anything further to be added to them, I know that the Clerks will advise us whether we should return to the matter, but I think his request for specific legal advice to the Speaker would be highly unusual. If I need to add anything to that, I assure him that I will come back to him.

Bill Presented

Football Governance Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Lucy Frazer, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary David T. C. Davies, John Glen and Stuart Andrew, presented a Bill to establish the Independent Football Regulator; to make provision for the licensing of football clubs; to make provision about the distribution of revenue received by organisers of football competitions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 187) with explanatory notes (Bill 187-EN).

Illegal and Unsustainable Fishing  (Due Diligence)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Chris Grayling: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require suppliers and retailers of fish and related products to establish and implement due diligence systems to ensure that those products are not obtained from illegal or unsustainable fishing; and for connected purposes.
In recent years the House has extensively debated the disastrous loss of biodiversity and habitats around the world. Our focus in doing so has rightly been on the threat to forests—in particular, the major forest areas in the Amazon, the Congo basin and south-east Asia—and on the implications of a situation where illegal deforestation to grow products such as palm oil and soy is doing huge damage.
The Government have done the right thing by being at the forefront of creating legislative frameworks to help address the commercial exploitation of those forest risk products. The Environment Act 2021 created the first real framework requiring UK businesses to know where their supplies come from and whether they come from areas affected by illegal deforestation, although I would nudge Ministers—I see the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries in his place—about the need finally to sort out all the secondary legislation that goes with that Act. However, illegal deforestation is not the only threat to biodiversity around the world. The loss of marine life and of marine ecosystems is as serious a priority for us all.
The destruction of fish stocks is nothing new: huge fisheries in the Atlantic have been destroyed through excessive levels of catch over the past century; massive stocks of herring and cod off our shores have steadily disappeared; huge cod fisheries off Canada suffered a similar fate; and more recently the common fisheries policy has failed to halt the pressure on fish stocks, with politics often overriding scientific advice. But that excessive extraction of fish stocks in a regulated environment is just one dimension of the problem facing marine life.
Over the course of this Parliament, I have pushed for a rapid extension of the ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas around the United Kingdom. I am pleased that we are now free to change those practices, which were permitted under the common fisheries policy, and that the Government are making real progress on moving away from an unacceptable situation, though there is still much to do on that front. The creation of highly protected marine areas is also a major step forward as long as it is done in the right areas, but even once the bans are in place I am in little doubt that rogue vessels will continue to push the rules to the limit and exceed them when no one is looking. These new laws will not stop the practice altogether.
The frank reality is that illegal practice is a feature of fisheries around the world. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is doing massive damage—ironically, particularly to the small coastal communities that depend on their fisheries for their local economy. Illegal operators have little regard for national or international law. They use  illegal equipment, and they have no regard to whether the species they are catching are endangered and protected, or whether it is a closed season. Backing those fleets up are refrigerated transport vessels and supply ships moving vast quantities of catch to markets around the world.
In many maritime regions of the world, IUU fishing has massively contributed to the depletion of fish stocks, especially in developing countries’ coastal waters. One of the biggest problem areas is west Africa, where IUU fishing accounts for an estimated 40% of all fish caught and about 20% of worldwide illegal fishing. Apart from the environmental damage, it is estimated that the practice costs those coastal communities in Africa billions of dollars a year. IUU fishing is practised in particular by China and Russia, and it tends to target species that are already over-exploited by legal fishing or are subject to restrictions. They target high-value species such as cod, salmon, trout, lobster and prawns.
The UK and the EU have tough rules on IUU fishing and systems in place. Imports have to be properly certified, but it is generally accepted that that does not stop fish from IUU vessels getting into Europe. There is seldom enough enforcement available to prevent illegality from taking place.
One thing we learned when the Ukraine war started and we began to put restrictions in place was just how much of our white fish imports were sourced from Russia; less well known was how much comes from China. Those two countries—together with Norway and Iceland—are by far the biggest suppliers of fish to the UK, and they are the biggest global source of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. To be frank, we should not trust either country to be ensuring that its fishing vessels conform to international norms and rules on good fishing practices. It is therefore right that we have a tight national regulatory regime and that it becomes tougher still, but I do not believe that a regulatory regime should be the only weapon in our armoury to tackle IUU fishing, and indeed illegal fishing closer to home.
I believe that we need to take an additional step in protecting fisheries here and around the world, which is to place the same duty on retailers for fish sourcing as we have for forest risk products. That means having a mandatory system of due diligence for retailers, and  particularly those buying their supplies via third-party wholesalers and other intermediaries, on which a big part of the industry depends. All we need those retailers to do in taking their purchasing decisions is to be clear that they know they are sourcing their stock from trusted and reliable sources and that they have a line of sight over their supply chains. That is what we are moving to do with forest risk products, and we need it to apply to fish as well.
I would like to see clear rules on the sustainability of UK fish stocks in the revised fishing arrangements that will need to be put in place in the next Parliament, regardless of the EU approach, which all too often allows catch limits above scientific recommendations. When the new agreement is reached in the coming years, there has to be a clear line that fishing must be sustainable in UK waters. Due diligence rules should then be applied to UK-sourced fish as well, particularly if there is a risk of illegal operations in marine protected areas. I fear that, notwithstanding the change to the rules, we will see that in future.
The purpose of the Bill is straightforward, and my proposal is very simple: we simply extend what we have already done in one area of critical biodiversity risk to another area—the future of our oceans. I am proud that this Government and this country were one of the first to address the issue of forest risk products and take action on the risks of those products coming to the UK. I want us to go a step further and apply the same principle and the same rules to fish from illegal fisheries around the world. I want us to be absolutely certain that when we buy fish in our shops, we know that we are not contributing to more unsustainable biodiversity loss in this country and elsewhere. With this Bill, we can protect our oceans and fisheries and do the right thing for our environment. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Grayling, Andrew Selous, Harriett Baldwin, Alex Sobel, Dr Matthew Offord, Ian Levy, Barry Gardiner and Trudy Harrison present the Bill.
Chris Grayling accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 186).

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee
[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Business and Trade Committee, UK accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, HC 483; and oral evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 21 November 2023, 6 February and 27 February 2024, on UK trade policy: food and agriculture, HC 162.]

New Clause 1 - Report: accession of states to the CPTPP

“(1) Before any decision is made by the Government of the United Kingdom on the accession of economies designated a ‘threat’ or ‘systemic challenge’ in the Integrated Review to the CPTPP under Chapter 30 of the CPTPP, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the impact of the accession of that economy on the United Kingdom.
(2) Both Houses of Parliament must be presented with a motion for resolution on the report under subsection (1).”—(Sir Iain Duncan Smith.)
This new clause seeks to ensure a parliamentary debate and decision on the UK’s position towards the accession to the CPTPP of certain states presenting a threat or systemic challenge to the UK.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Iain Duncan Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Assessment of impact of CPTPP on deforestation and import of certain products—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP on—
(a) the volume of UK imports of palm oil;
(b) the volume of UK imports of tropical wood;
(c) the rate of deforestation in Asia;
(d) the UK’s ability to fulfil its obligations under—
(i) the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; and
(ii) the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must be published no earlier than a year and no later than 18 months after the passing of this Act.”
New clause 3—Report on the impact and use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of the implementation of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement aspect of the Investment Chapter of the CPTPP on the UK.
(2) A report prepared under subsection (1) must include—
(a) analysis of the likely use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure in relation to the UK, and the likely impact of such on the UK;
(b) details of discussions held with other signatories to the CPTPP regarding the use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure in relation to the UK; and
(c) discussions held with, or agreements made with, other signatories to the CPTPP regarding the exclusion or exemption of the UK from any use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure.”
New clause 4—Report: accession of new states to the CPTPP—
“(1) Before any decision is made by the Government on the accession of a new state to CPTPP under Chapter 30 of the CPTPP, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the potential benefits and impact of the accession of that candidate state on the United Kingdom.
(2) Both Houses of Parliament must be presented with a motion for resolution on the report under subsection (1).”
New clause 5—Review: Investor-State Dispute Settlement—
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the financial risk of the implementation of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement aspect of the Investment Chapter of the CPTPP, not more than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 6—Impact assessment: environmental standards etc—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters of the CPTPP on—
(a) environmental standards,
(b) food standards, and
(c) animal welfare standards.
(2) An impact assessment under subsection (1) must be published not less than two years, but not more than three years, after the day on which this Act is passed and every two years thereafter.”
New clause 7—Report on business impact of CPTPP—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a plan outlining the steps being taken to—
(a) measure the impact on UK businesses of the implementation of the CPTPP; and
(b) support UK businesses to benefit from the UK's membership of the CPTPP.”
New clause 8—Impact assessment: labour standards—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP Labour Chapter not more than eighteen months after the day on which this Act is passed and every 18 months thereafter.
(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—
(a) the impact on the Government’s commitments to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation;
(b) steps that have been taken to ensure adherence to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation in CPTPP partner countries; and
(c) how the experience and impact of implementation might inform negotiation of future trade agreements.”
New clause 9—Comparative analysis of impact on UK businesses—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP on the matters listed in subsection (3).
(2) The report must include an analysis comparing the respective situation for each of the matters listed in subsection (3) prior to the implementation of the CPTPP with the situation post the implementation of the CPTPP.
(3) The issues which must be included in the comparative analysis contained in the report laid under subsection (1) are—
(a) tariffs paid by UK businesses to bring in or remove items from the UK;
(b) costs of non-tariff border control measures paid by UK businesses to bring in or remove items from the UK;
(c) inflation in the UK;
(d) the extent of alignment of regulations relevant to UK businesses;
(e) the ability of UK businesses to trade with the EU;
(f) the implications for UK businesses of introducing new trade and climate regulations, including for carbon pricing;
(g) tariff and non-tariff costs facing businesses trading with the EU; and
(h) trade volumes for UK businesses trading with the EU.
(4) Within 10 days of a report being laid under subsection (1) the Government must schedule a debate on the findings of the report in each House.”
New clause 10—Report on economic impact of implementation of CPTPP—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the economic impact of the implementation of the CPTPP.
(2) A report published under subsection (1) must include an analysis comparing the respective situation for each of the matters listed in subsection (3) prior to the implementation of the CPTPP with the situation post the implementation of the CPTPP.
(3) The matters which must be included in the comparative analysis contained in the report laid under subsection (1) are—
(a) the UK’s trade in goods;
(b) the UK’s trade in services; and
(c) UK GDP.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a comparative analysis of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP on UK trade and GDP.
New clause 11—Impact assessment: new states acceding to the CPTPP—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report assessing the impact of the accession of new states to the CPTPP on the United Kingdom.
(2) In respect of states that have submitted a request to the Depositary of the CPTPP to join the CPTPP since 2019, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament within three months of this Act coming into force.
(3) In respect of states submitting a request to the Depository of the CPTPP to join the CPTPP following the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament within three months of a request being made.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide an impact assessment on the accession of countries that have made and will make a formal request to join the CPTPP.
New clause 12—Impact assessment: UK performers’ rights—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of performers' rights provisions in the CPTPP.
(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must include—
(a) consideration of the impact of performers' rights provisions on qualifying individuals in the UK;
(b) an assessment of the reciprocity of rights across qualifying countries;
(c) consultation with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would mean the Government must publish an assessment of the impact the performers’ rights provisions in the CPTPP will have on qualifying individuals in the UK.
New clause 13—Review of regulatory impact of implementation of the CPTPP treaty on UK businesses—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the regulatory impact of the implementation of the CPTPP treaty on costs to exporting and importing businesses in the UK.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must take account of the existing levels of costs to exporting and importing businesses arising from trade regulations.”
This new clause would require the Government to report on the impact of implementation of the CPTPP treaty on the costs to businesses in the UK. The report would need to take the existing trade costs facing such businesses into account.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(5) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before Government has moved a substantive motion to resolve that the UK Accession Protocol should not be ratified.”
Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 6, line 36, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must, after a period of three years from the passing of this Act, lay a report before Parliament containing an assessment of the impact of changes made in this section.”

Iain Duncan Smith: It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 1, which is signed by a cross-party group of MPs who all believe that Parliament should have the right to scrutinise trade deals. It seeks to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the UK’s position toward the accession of economies that are designated—that word is very specific—as “threats” or “systemic challenges”. It would achieve two things. First, the Government would be required to produce a report assessing the impact of the economy’s accession on the UK, and both Houses of Parliament would have a non-binding vote on the UK’s position regarding the accession of the economy in question. In other words, we would take the temperature of Parliament’s view, even if it disagreed with the Government. That is important, because the public need to know about it, so we should not be frightened of this.

Anthony Mangnall: I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing the new clause. Some of us have been arguing for parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals for the last four years. There is a mechanism in the form of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Is that not the better vehicle, because it has already passed? It also offers a vote, theoretically, for us to be able to scrutinise our trade deals.

Iain Duncan Smith: I will come to that in a minute, because it does not, and that is the whole point of the new clause. In the 2023 integrated review refresh, the countries defined as threats were Russia, Iran and North Korea, while China was designated a systemic challenge. The new clause does not directly mention China, but of the eligible countries under the current integrated review, China is the only economy that has applied to join. In fact it is theoretically next on the list to go into the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership.

Mark Garnier: I completely understand the point my right hon. Friend is trying to make, but one of the interesting things about being a  member of CPTPP is that countries then have a power of veto. That gives us quite a lot of strength to potentially prevent China from joining.

Iain Duncan Smith: I enjoy the idea that my hon. Friend puts such trust in Government never to take other arrangements into consideration. We know how that works. It will be fine today with my right hon. Friend the Minister here, but there may be others in charge in future, and I am not sure I would always want to rest my defence in Ministers.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for this new clause. Was he as surprised as I was that when we asked the Secretary of State whether she would block China’s accession to CPTPP she was unable to give us an unequivocal answer?

Iain Duncan Smith: I think the right hon. Gentleman makes my point. I sat in Government and all I can say to him is that one cannot always say that Ministers will necessarily do the right thing; rather, they will do the right thing by the Government, which is sometimes not the same. I do not mean to cast aspersions on my party’s Government by any means, but that has happened in the past. I simply want to make the point that China’s potential accession has huge implications for all sorts of things, including because of its immense economic and political influence in the region and the pressures on the UK if we were almost isolated in our observations.
China is not a likeminded party—there may be other countries that are rather similar. It openly seeks to revise the liberal, open and rules-based order and establish itself as a regional hegemon. If admitted, it would be the largest economy and dominant economic and trading partner in the CPTPP, with unrivalled political influence. It could block a future US entry. As we join it is important for us to make way for the US and bring it in, which will help in a whole range of areas. China’s accession would help to cement Beijing’s desired leadership in global trade. I will remind the House that China is next up for the CPTPP, so this is not something conjured up.
China’s entry also risks further increasing economic dependence on it, which is already too high, and building resilience into the Chinese economy to weather sanctioning should tensions over Taiwan escalate, which they almost certainly will. That would run counter to the UK’s strategic efforts to de-risk and maintain the status quo in the region. Serious human rights abuses are and continue to be embedded within Chinese supply chains. China is the most egregious offender in this regard, with its actions on religion in Xinjiang and in Tibet, where slave labour is also practised. Slave labour undercuts the World Trade Organisation and normal trade. Those are good commercial reasons why the membership of any country with the views China happens to have would have a real impact.
China’s accession is unlikely to drive economic reform in the country. There is no political ability to drive such reform under President Xi, who has moved China further away from the spirit of the CPTPP on labour rights protections.

Daniel Kawczynski: I have just returned from leading a parliamentary delegation to Lithuania, where my right hon. Friend was talked about by many Lithuanian politicians. They mentioned the leading role he is taking in warning western democracies about the conduct of the Chinese Communist Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Lithuania is a very interesting case for us to study, so that we can perhaps learn from how a European country confronts and takes on the increasingly nefarious conduct of the Chinese Communist party?

Iain Duncan Smith: It is always kind to be referred to in another country, which leads me to wonder whether I should stand there. [Interruption.] I need no encouragement from those on the Opposition Benches, thank you very much. My hon. Friend is quite right; Lithuania is a tiny country, but rather bravely it has recognised Taiwan and it has come under the cosh from China as a result. I thank him for that intervention.
As I said, this is not a pipe dream. China applied to join the CPTPP on 16 September 2021, and is next in line. It is widely reported that Beijing is already lobbying hard for membership, and that countries previously opposed have softened their line. Australia has done so because it has had trade problems, as we know. All that is required for Chinese accession is for other members to permit it. The current labour regulations would seem to preclude China’s accession, but the risk is there and we should not take it.
An actor-agnostic approach—linking to the integrated review rather than naming any specific actor—would also enable the Government to create a threshold that is reflexive to developments rather than static. That would means that a report, debate and vote would be required only where the integrated review had designated specific economies as threats or systematic challenges. The language in the review is weak in its own right, but none the less it is there.
I want to deal with the CRaG process quickly. The new clause is in line with the Government policy, but exposes a loophole in the CRaG process. There is currently no provision for a debate and non-binding vote on future accession to plurilateral trade agreements. The process would not require the Government to produce an impact report on China’s accession to the CPTPP, nor would it provide for a parliamentary debate or vote. Given the long-term significance to the UK of being in a plurilateral trade agreement where the biggest partner is China, it is appropriate for Parliament to be furnished with an up-to-date, accurate report, and to have the opportunity to consider the matter—after all, there is no other reason why we are here if not to discuss such important matters.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about some of the weaknesses of CRaG and the need to strengthen it, particularly when there are accessions or other material changes to a treaty to which we are a member. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I sit on, has published a report that outlines some of the changes to the way that the Government operate under CRaG. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to change it so that significant changes to treaties and accessions should  always automatically be subject to a report and potential vote in this House? Otherwise, we will sign ourselves up to things without knowing what will happen further along the line.

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree. I was not so certain about this, so I looked at what Lord Lisvane, the one-time chief Clerk in the House, said about it. He produced a note on it, which I quote:
“The issue, as I recall, was whether a Motion to approve the PRC’s accession could be amended. Commons S.O. No 24B says that when a Motion in neutral terms (in the judgement of the Chair) is tabled, no amendments to it may be tabled. I think this would probably rule out seeking to amend a simple ‘take note’ or ‘has considered’ Motion.”
I want to emphasise that it is not true that a motion to take note can be amended—that was used in the other place as a defence. The CRaG process does not provide for a vote; it does not even guarantee a debate. That is why the new clause is needed.
Under UK trade policy, it is not unusual for bilateral trade agreements to be subject to parliamentary approval—free trade agreements are routinely subject to it. In response to criticism of the CRaG process in 2021, the Grimstone rule was established, whereby the Government agreed in principle to allow time to debate prospective FTAs where the International Agreements Committee has published a report. I happen to believe that there are Ministers who are keen and happy to have debates—I mention no names, but that is the case. However, I know that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office absolutely opposes them, because it hates to have any serious debates about its prerogative.

John Martin McDonnell: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is keen on debates. On that basis, I invite him to sign my prayer against this treaty, to urge the Government to give us a debate on the treaty as a whole.

Iain Duncan Smith: I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to tempt me beyond my new clause. I always happy to look at this issue, and I believe in debate. It is vital, otherwise Governments are never held to account.
It is important to emphasise that once the Bill is passed, the CRaG process cannot be applied to future accessions. I am aware that it is against long-standing UK policy to tie the Government’s hands on trade. That is why the vote provided for in the new clause would not be binding. That allows the Government to take note of the debate and perhaps change policy in due course.
Article 30.4 of the CPTPP agreement explicitly provides that accession may be
“subject to...the applicable legal procedures of each Party and acceding State or separate customs territory (accession candidate).”
The UK’s procedures already allow for some parliamentary scrutiny. There is no legal basis to argue that enhanced scrutiny would impact the UK’s accession.
The UK is not alone; other Governments have spoken freely in the past about their opposition to China’s accession—in particular, key UK allies Japan and Australia. Australia stated that it would not endorse China’s application while Beijing continues to block the import of Australian goods including wine and barley. That is a  matter for Australia to debate. It has joined Canada, Japan and New Zealand in condemning China’s economic coercion. Despite a little softening in its line, Australia was still warning that there was no chance China would join in the near term.
Japan, a country that has been most astute in dealing with China economically, continues to see China’s application as fundamentally geopolitical. Japan’s Minister of Finance stated:
“China...is far removed from the free, fair and highly transparent world of TPP, chances that it can join are close to zero”.
He said that China’s application
“can be thought of as a move to prevent Taiwan from joining.”
Taiwan, by the way, is second up. For those who do not know, it is not about countries but economies, which is why Taiwan can bid to join the CPTPP even if its status as a nation is not recognised by everyone.

Daniel Kawczynski: My right hon. Friend is highlighting the various concerns about China’s conduct and why it should not join the CPTPP. Does he agree that the conduct of the Chinese Government in the South China sea—a waterway through which 60% of the world’s trade passes—where it has stolen hundreds of atolls from Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and others, is also a cause for concern?

Iain Duncan Smith: It is, although I cannot follow my hon. Friend through Lithuania and the atolls of the far east, because I would be ruled out of order by the Chair. I hope he will forgive me, but he makes a strong point.
I say gently to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), that it was a Labour Member, Lord Leong, who tabled the amendment in Committee in the Lords. Labour said that it would whip for the amendment if it were reworked to not mention China. Strangely, the new clause does not mention China, so I would have hoped that Labour would support it, but it does not. I understand that Labour has tabled its own new clause.
Parliament should be able to make its voice heard on a matter of such national significance. The new clause does not overturn constitutional conventions by a long way. Having a report, a debate and a non-binding vote would not determine Government policy, but it would determine the House’s view on the elements of this particular trade deal. I note that Opposition new clause 4 also seeks to look at this, but there are other issues that I will not bring up now.
There are elements in the Government who believe that debate is not a bad thing, because it allows them to make their case for why such a trade deal is important. I urge the Government to be positive about this, because being positive about debate in the House of Commons is a restatement of democracy. It allows people to decide whether they agree. More importantly, this is about accession. If those who follow us in seeking to join the treaty are defined as a threat, as they are in the review, that will at least inform the Government. It will also allow the House to pressure the Government over its real concern about what they might be doing. In future, a Government from either side of the House or of whatever form may choose, under pressure from China over economic issues, to let it accede to the treaty.  Who knows? I do not say that that is the mood, but it is for Back Benchers to make their point about what the Government should do and for them to take note. In that regard, I commend my new clause to the House.

Liam Byrne: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I will speak in support of new clause 1, which he tabled, as well as the new clauses tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I welcome this debate and the new clauses and amendments that have been tabled, but I lament the fact that we have not been permitted a full debate on the treaty—something the right hon. Gentleman argued for very eloquently. We needed a debate today not merely on the three chapters of the CPTPP covered by the Bill, but on the full 30 chapters of the treaty, with all the associated annexes and bits of analysis and argument.
I do not want to detain the House for very long, because the Business and Trade Committee went to the length of writing and publishing a report earlier this year. However, I want to underline the point about the lack of scrutiny. Of course, it was the Government themselves, in the Grimstone rule, who said that no new free trade agreements would be ratified by His Majesty’s Government without a full debate on whether we should agree to them. When I asked the Secretary of State on 23 January whether she would agree to a debate under the terms of the CRaG process, she said she would be “happy to support” such a debate. Her officials then wrote to the Clerks on the Select Committee to say that such a debate had been requested, only to be told by the Leader of the House that no time was available. The Leader of the House confirmed that in writing to me last week in a letter in which she said:
“it has not been possible to find time for a debate in Government time.”
The House of Lords is having a debate on the treaty today on the recommendation of the International Agreements Committee, so why can’t we? Are we second-class representatives in this House? Are we unqualified to have a debate on all 30 chapters of the treaty? Are we not qualified to speak, on behalf of the people we came into public life to represent, about how the treaty will affect their future? I think we are. I think we should have a debate on the full treaty.
And I cannot believe that we are out of time. Members will have seen the report in the Financial Times last week, which said that the working day in this Chamber
“has been shorter on average this parliamentary session than in any other in the past quarter century”.
Are we seriously saying that we have not been able to find time for a debate, which it is the Government’s policy to support, on one of the only free trade agreements that His Majesty’s Government have been able to bring forward since we left the European Union?
On Twitter, the Minister—I am a keen follower of the Minister on Twitter, he will be pleased to hear—said last week that there have been four parliamentary debates on the treaty, but I wonder if he is sure about that. When I asked the Clerks on the Select Committee to check that, they were left scratching their heads a little bit. They could not find all four that the Minister  referred to. We have to accept that there is no shortage of controversy in the Bill, not least because the Secretary of State herself resiled from the figures that describe the benefits of the treaty to the country.

Anthony Mangnall: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with him. I thought I might just throw a bone in the form of cross-party support on this point. Having a debate is not just about pointing out controversies; it is about having the opportunity to justify and debate things about which our constituents care. These trade deals make a difference not only to the businesses, but to the services and agriculture sectors in our respective constituencies. That is why it is damaging not to have a debate: it fails to allow us the opportunity to persuade people that trade deals can be a force for good.

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I commend his contribution both to the Committee and to the report that we published on the CPTPP earlier this year.
There are a number of important new clauses and amendments not only about the future expansion plans of the CPTPP and what our policy on those might look like, but also, in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, about investor-state dispute settlement. This is important because in all the fanfare, arguments and passionate bits of literature and speeches offered by the Government about the virtues of the treaty, it was always positioned as a gateway to the fastest-growing economy on Earth that will represent a significant fraction of economic growth in the future. Of course, what was often missing from those eloquent descriptions was a recognition that the countries in the CPTPP represent only about a fifth, at best, of the Indo-Pacific region.
We are surely right to worry that there could well be a Government drive to expand the orbit of the treaty to a much wider group of nations. If the Government really want to take aim at the biggest economies on Earth, they may well encourage China to join. However, when I asked the Secretary of State whether it was her policy to agree to or block China’s accession, she said that that was not something we could discuss on the Floor of the House or in the Select Committee. That is why safeguards are needed. We might even be so bold as to merely ask for a little bit of clarity on the Government’s future strategy. That is why the amendments on the future pathway of the treaty are so important and why I hope we will have a vote on some aspect of that today, even if it is not on the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green.
I will talk briefly about new clause 3, which relates to ISDS. It is important, because His Majesty’s Government have agreed side letters with a number of countries to take us out of the ISDS process. That is not an exemption or safeguard that we saw when it came to agreeing to the treaty, yet the treaty includes countries such as Canada—I think we are just about on fraternal terms with Canada at the moment; we may have failed to agree an FTA with it, but quite why is a matter of some dispute between the Canadian Government and the Secretary of State. Canada is home to some of the biggest pension fund investors on the planet and we know that those funds are especially litigious. Although the Minister was right, when he answered these questions  in earlier conversations, to say we have never lost an ISDS case, the reality is that many fear there will be a chilling effect on the regulations we bring forward because of a fear of the peril of ISDS procedures.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: My right hon. Friend is speaking very well on some of the new clauses I have tabled on ISDS. It is of course true that getting the side letters for all member states was good enough for New Zealand, so it was protected more—not fully protected, I grant him. If it was good enough for New Zealand, it should have been good enough for us. Is it not a sign that Ministers have lacked ambition, or is it a sign of complacency?

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps it is because we did not want to overly annoy the Canadians, but the truth is that the talks with the Canadians have broken down—at a cost, by the way, to the UK automotive industry. In fact, UK cars will be hit on average by a £3,000 tariff in about a month or two, because of the breakdown of those talks. It is important for us to have a vote on why we do not have those procedures, why we do not have those safeguards and why we do not have those side letters.
Finally, I want to underline the point made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. As a House, we must become far more skilled, far more ready and far more adroit at debating the kinds of treaties we will be asked to sign. Once upon a time, when the Berlin wall came down, we promised ourselves that we could look forward to a new world of free trade, and we hoped that that free trade could bring political progress and a democratic process—Wandel durch Handel, as the Germans liked to say.
However, that reality is now smashed; that era ended with the second invasion of Ukraine. We are now in new times, when we have to debate not just military security but economic security, and economic security questions are always freighted with dilemmas. We are a small nation and our adversaries are big, so we must always act with our allies, but not all our allies are good, and many of our friends would prefer not to pick a side. Our adversaries plan for self-sufficiency, but we cannot. We prefer open, free trade, but global supply chains are risky. We like markets to decide, but security always requires state action. We know that we need to work proactively to shape the long term, but democracies frequently entail a short-term change of Government, and too often our politics is reactive.
There are no right answers to these dilemmas. Together, we will have to find ways of navigating them. Do we act alone or together? Should we be open or closed? Can we act in the short term, or do we need to think for the long term? Do we use carrots or sticks? Is this a broad canvas of action, or do we need a targeted approach? These are questions that are hard to answer, but unless we debate them in the House, we will not grow the skills and the experience to make good and wise decisions for the future. That is why we needed a debate on the CPTPP treaty under the CRaG process. Today’s debate is important, but it is second best.

Liam Fox: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne).
I rise to echo the comments made so eloquently and clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and to add just a few comments of my own. I have always been in favour of the CPTPP, and, as I said from the Front Bench in 2019,
“It is absolutely essential, particularly given the rise of protectionism globally, that we commit ourselves to a rules-based system based on the WTO. Of course, we have abilities to augment that by other regional relationships, which is why we have had the public consultation and the debate in Parliament about the potential accession to the CPTPP”.—[Official Report, 6 June 2019; Vol. 661, c. 250.]
I have also always believed that the benefits of the CPTPP have been at least as much about geopolitics as about simple import and export numbers. As the Royal United Services Institute put it,
“Joining the CPTPP provides the UK with not just economic benefits, but the means to help define and defend a rules-based order in the face of China’s diplomatic and economic heft.”
At a time of tense relations between China and the United States, the United Kingdom has joined a trade agreement in which neither is present, although the United States was instrumental in its creation—a point to which I shall return later.
The March 2023 integrated review refresh describes the Indo-Pacific as
“critical to the UK’s economy, security and our interest in an open and stable international order. Developments there will have disproportionate influence on the global economy, supply chains”
—that was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill—
“strategic stability and norms of state behaviour.”
The CPTPP, in turn, is about a contribution to the stability of the global trade and investment system.
Within that debate, what do we perceive China’s security threat to the UK to be? In their reply to a report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, in a section entitled “The Strategic Context”, the Government stated:
“China almost certainly maintains the largest state intelligence apparatus in the world. The nature and scale of the Chinese Intelligence Services are—like many aspects of China’s government—hard to grasp for the outsider, due to the size of the bureaucracy, the blurring of lines of accountability between party and state officials, a partially decentralised system, and a lack of verifiable information.”
They also stated:
“The Chinese Intelligence Services target the UK and its overseas interests prolifically and aggressively. While they seek to obtain classified information, they are willing to utilise intelligence officers and agents to collect open source information indiscriminately—given the vast resources at their disposal…To compound the problem, it is not just the Chinese Intelligence Services: the Chinese Communist Party co-opts every state institution, company and citizen. This ‘whole-of-state’ approach means China can aggressively target the UK”
—and UK interests, wherever those interests are globally. Sadly, we have discovered that to our cost in many of our governmental institutions here.
The question, given all that, is this: could China actually be admitted to the CPTPP, and if it is theoretically possible, how likely is it? I think it instructive to look first at the experience of the World Trade Organisation, a brief that my right hon. Friend the Minister and I shared over several years of my extremely enjoyable time working with him at the Department for International Trade.  When China acceded to the WTO in 2001, the west saw it as promising and promoting economic and political reform. It was a time of great optimism that the Chinese communist system could be pulled in a direction that would be advantageous to, and in the interests of, the west. However, Jiang Zemin, the Chinese leader at the time, claimed that the motive of the United States in all this was to
“westernise and divide socialist countries”.
Thus the WTO itself was heading for a stalemate in its direction of travel almost from the point at which China acceded to it.
This has added to other WTO problems—and I mention that because we need to look at the CPTPP within the wider trading framework. The WTO’s problems have been compounded by its adoption of the concept of unanimity, while its rules talk about consensus. If consensus and unanimity meant the same thing, there would not be two different words for it in the founding documents. This has meant that virtually any country in the WTO now exercises a right of veto, which has prevented us from moving forward in what we perceived to be a process of genuine liberalisation of global trade.

Iain Duncan Smith: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend’s excellent speech. The key was, we were told at the time, that the move would change China, and that persuaded the Government, but what we have found is that China is now changing the terms of the debate, because it has not changed at all—it has got worse. Is that not a very good reason why we need to debate these issues whenever we can?

Liam Fox: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. As I observed at the time, President Clinton took the view that the treaty was the best hope that the west had of pulling China into a much more market-orientated, rules-based economy, where we could gain the benefits of a more liberal, global economy, but that is not how it turned out. We have had only one multilateral treaty since the WTO was created, the 2017 trade facilitation agreement.
There is a hierarchy of agreements that we can secure in terms of liberalisation. A multilateral agreement is the best, but given the effective veto that countries have, that is unlikely, and it is very unlikely to give us the benefits that we would like to see, especially the liberalisation of trade in services. The next best is a plurilateral agreement, the next best after that is a regional agreement, and then we are down to what some people would unkindly describe as the bargain basement of bilateral FTAs. All those are useful in creating a more liberal global trading environment. However, if China were to seek to join the CPTPP, it would need to commit itself to liberalisation in line with CPTPP requirements, which would require a reduced role for the Chinese state. If anyone who keeps an eye on current affairs thinks that the Chinese state is tending in the direction of a smaller influence, they are watching different news outlets from the ones that I am watching.
China could, of course, seek a bespoke agreement to join the CPTPP, but the UK has already set the precedent by joining on current terms. Even if China could join the CPTPP, could it be trusted to meet any of the conditions of accession? Although Chinese leaders have  declared their willingness to meet the conditions, many countries are extremely sceptical, given China’s behaviour as a WTO member. China has a poor record when it comes to complying with WTO rules and observing the fundamental principles of non-discrimination, openness, reciprocity, fairness and transparency on which the WTO agreements are based. China’s subsidies over capacity, intellectual property theft and protectionist non-market policies exacerbate distortions in the global economy, and—even more worryingly—China’s use of trade as a tool of coercive diplomacy has raised concerns further, especially given its behaviour towards Australia and Japan. This is not the sort of partner we should be wishing to join us in the CPTPP, unless there are previously unimagined changes in behaviour.
Finally, a word, if I may, beyond this Chamber to our US colleagues: I believe that the decision to leave the CPTPP by the United States was a mistake. It removed from United States policymakers a tool in its strategic ability to shape events in the region. UK accession provides an opportunity for the United States to seek to join this new grouping and gain greater direct influence over China trade relations with the fastest growing economic zone in the world. These are all reasons why we must keep a very close eye on what happens with China and our new membership of the CPTPP. We have gained a great deal; we cannot afford to have it thrown away, by ourselves or by others.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to a maiden speech; I call Damien Egan.

Damien Egan: It is with great pleasure that I rise to give my maiden speech as we speak to this Bill, which aims to boost international trade and economic growth. Stimulating growth and trade is vital to my constituents in Kingswood, as it creates new jobs and is ultimately about how we fund our public services.
As is traditional in a maiden speech, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Chris Skidmore. I learnt during the campaign that there was a reason why Chris’s votes would go up every time he stood for election. Throughout the by-election campaign, people talked very warmly about Chris; he was described as being “a good man” and someone driven by values—a double-edged sword, some might say—but perhaps most importantly as someone who cared. I heard about some really complicated pieces of casework, where Chris had personally given a lot of his time to get people the help they needed, so I would like to place on record my thanks to Chris for his 14 years of service to the people of Kingswood.
Kingswood had four MPs before Chris. Roger Berry was a tireless campaigner—in fact, he still is—for disability rights. He brought forward the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in 1993, which galvanised support for future legislation that made discrimination against disabled people illegal. Kingswood’s three other MPs were Rob Hayward, Jack Aspinwall and Terry Walker. On my second day here, when I got into my office, the first letter I received was from Terry Walker. If you are listening, Terry, thank you.
I have been asked by some Members, “So where exactly is Kingswood?” Kingswood lies on the eastern side of Bristol, and I would say that more people than not would say that they live in Bristol. It is a suburban collection of towns and villages that stretches from the edge of the city and extends into beautiful countryside.
Kingswood has an interesting story. In medieval times it served as a royal hunting ground: quite literally, the King’s wood. In the 18th century it was a thriving home for workers from nearby coalmines, and it was at that time that John Wesley was encouraged to deliver his very first outdoor sermons—in Kingswood. I must be one of thousands of children over the years who at primary school was taken to the site of those sermons, Hanham Mount, where today a spiring green beacon illuminates the spot where Wesley once preached.
In the early 20th century, Kingswood hosted the largest motorbike factory in the world, the Douglas motorbike factory, where 25,000 motorbikes were made to support the military in world war one. In one of those quirky bits of history—this did catch me out in a radio interview—legend has it that Kingswood hosted an elephant burial when Nancy, who was part of a travelling menagerie, died of yew leaf poisoning. I am told that archaeologists are investigating.
Being elected in a by-election towards the end of a Parliament does focus the mind; you have to think about making your moments count. Indeed, Rishi could still call a surprise election tomorrow! So I thought, Mr Speaker, that as well as giving you a little bit of information about Kingswood itself, I would also share what the people of Kingswood told me during the campaign, which I hope includes issues that are pertinent to all Members, whichever party in this Chamber they represent.
The first thing to say is that people told me that family life had become much harder. I spoke to parents who told me that they are stressed and exhausted. People are doing all the right things—working hard, putting in extra hours, paying the bills—but they told me time and again that they feel like they are just existing through life, and not living it. It is not as though people are asking for a lot, but when you work hard, you ought to be able to feel secure for the future. You should be left with enough money to enjoy life—to pay for meals out, order that occasional takeaway, plan nice trips for the children or book a family holiday. I am sure that no one here would think that was a lot to ask for, but I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that for an increasing number of working people in Kingswood, those are now out-of-reach luxuries.
People told me that they feel that they are paying more, but getting less. We do not have a single NHS dentist accepting new patients, not just in Kingswood, but anywhere in the entire Bristol area, and it is so hard to get in at the doctors’. I spoke to a woman who had to call her doctor 117 times before she got through, only to be told, “We’re full up today. Call back tomorrow.”
There is a lot of sympathy for the challenges that the Government have faced—not just all the different Prime Ministers, but covid and Ukraine—and the pressure that those things have put on the public finances, but people want to see us doing better with the money that we have. People told me that they do not feel safe, and that they do not see enough police. Interestingly, I spoke to a long-serving police officer who said he was frustrated because increased bureaucracy means that he is sat behind his desk, when in his words, he “joined the police to catch criminals.”
Bus cuts were mentioned, as whole areas of Bristol now do not have any buses. That is great news for our taxi drivers, who work very hard driving people all around the city, but of course not everyone can afford a taxi. The decline of the high street came up a lot in the campaign. Kingswood has changed so much since I was growing up, and it is sad to see. There is hope, though; the council plans some investment, which I hope really kickstarts the improvements that many of us want to see.
Also high up on the list of things that people mentioned were apprenticeships and opportunities for well-paid work. Kingswood used to be a hub for apprenticeships. My dad was an apprentice—one of 140 in his year, all from local schools—but his generation’s grandchildren do not have the same volume of opportunities to go straight from school into the workplace, and we all miss out on skills as a result. When it comes to education generally, South Gloucestershire schools are the lowest funded in the country. Why?
Those are some of the concerns that were mentioned. It is obviously not an exhaustive list; I could have dedicated a whole speech to potholes. There were some national concerns too, including immigration, and real worries about how, in a rapidly changing world with growing threats to peace, we do all we can to invest in and support our armed forces. I spoke to soldiers who were looking for second jobs, and the wife of one told me that some of her husband’s equipment is held together with gaffer tape.
A winter by-election is weeks and weeks of knocking on cold, wet doors—and many colleagues joined me. For me, it was a privilege to have so many real, honest, normal conversations, which were so far removed from the angry online echo chambers. It was a reminder that the social media bubble that has become so dominant does not reflect mainstream Britain and the everyday challenges that people face.
I hoped to give you a little flavour of Kingswood—not just the place, but the people—and I will leave you with this: there is a reason why Kingswood usually picks the winner at every general election. Kingswood is a representative voice of decent British people who work hard and play by the rules, love their family, and just want the best for their children. Our job is to make sure that the country to which they give so much gives them a good future in return.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us remain in the south-west. I call Anthony Mangnall.

Anthony Mangnall: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan), and may I congratulate him on his maiden speech? It is somewhat frustrating, as one of the younger Members on the Conservative side of the House, to find new Members turning up who look fresher, healthier and readier for the fight. He also managed to unify the House when talking about potholes; I do not think he will find any disagreement on that subject. He comes to this place with a huge amount of experience, not just from fighting other seats, but having been Mayor of Lewisham, where he did extraordinary work on community land trusts that Members from across the House have commented on and would like to follow in our constituencies. I am  sure that his family are somewhere in the Gallery and will be proud of his maiden speech. He has done very well.
I would like to make a few remarks about CPTPP, the tongue-twister that seems to have made many Members of this place fall sideways. We should start by recognising what the United Kingdom has managed to do over the last four years. We have recognised the global ambition of fulfilling our trade objectives. We have succeeded in joining CPTTP, but we have also secured deals with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, as well as joining the Singapore digital partnership. I spend my life repeating the fact that we have made those deals; it is important that we recognise their true value, not just to GDP, but to businesses, the economy, the environment and business people across the United Kingdom and, indeed, the world. It shows that we are determined to fulfil our promise and commitment to sign deals to bolster our position in the world. Of course, negotiations are also under way with the Gulf Co-operation Council, Israel and others.
In joining CPTTP, we are signing a deal with the fastest-growing region in the world. Now that we have tariff-free trade relations, the UK is set to increase trade with the countries in CPTTP by £37 billion by 2030. It is a market worth £110 billion to UK trade. With growth at 8% between 2016 and 2019, UK membership is only expected to boost that figure. Conservative figures—I say “conservative” because I feel that they are underestimates—suggest that there will be a £1.8 billion increase to GDP and an £800 million boost to take-home pay for workers. Additionally, estimates are that trade with the 11 members will increase by an average of 65%, with the west midlands, Scotland and Northern Ireland benefiting most, so I look forward to hearing the SNP’s point of view, and whether it will support the Bill.
As has already been mentioned, the point of this deal is that it allows us to have tariff-free trade in goods. CPTPP has new product regulations, expands our role and opportunities for services, and ensures mobility for business people. Digital trade will be enhanced and intellectual property enshrined, with benchmarks created by the United Kingdom, and the CPTPP has sustainability at its core. However, I would like to focus my remarks on new clauses 1 and 4.
It has been my cause, war or campaign—however one wants to phrase it—over the last four years that Parliament should do better on our trade agreements. We should spend more time scrutinising and debating them. It is always a source of frustration that when we have debates on trade, so few people show up. The ability of this House to explain the value of a trade deal to our constituents, to justify its economic value and to talk about the potential security risk is diminished when we do not have opportunities on the Floor of the House to discuss the merits or demerits of any trade agreement.
I disagree with new clauses 1 and 4 not because I am being belligerent, or because the Whips have me under the cosh, but because we need to focus on reforming the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Parliament cannot opine on every single international treaty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a point about whether accession to CPTTP should be  debated on the Floor of the House. There could be no limit to that, but he did not explain—I will let him intervene if he wants to—how he would get around the royal prerogative issue; international trade agreements are not in the hands of Parliament, but in the hands of Government Ministers. That was not considered in his remarks.

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree. I could have taken this even further, but my point is that the Foreign Office dislikes any idea of debate and discussion. However, we have a Trade Department, which needs to be imbued with the power to ensure that debate happens. I am completely in favour of just punching through the nonsense and the poor use of the prerogative.

Anthony Mangnall: I understand that, but I feel that punching through on this occasion would be the wrong approach. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Foreign Office’s appetite for us debating these issues in this place should not matter one jot, because it is our right as parliamentarians to discuss free trade agreements and whether they work. Respectfully, I say that the mechanism for ensuring that we get better trade agreements, and can be reassured about their economic value and benefits to the British people and our national security, has to be achieved by upgrading the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) made an excellent point when he referred to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report’s recommendation on enshrining a methodology to ensure that CRaG operates within 21 sitting days, and that a meaningful vote is held at the end of that period. If that were ever to take place, it would be meaningful, because it would delay the signing of any free trade agreement by 21 days.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about the need to change CRaG; we mentioned that need in our report. Our report made it clear that a lot of changes do not necessarily need legislation, but they do need a change of approach from the Government. There should be a clear commitment made at the Dispatch Box that debates will always be called when there is significant interest in a subject, and particularly when there are commitments around new accession. If the Government made those commitments, it would be enough, but they are still not forthcoming. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box today and give those commitments, so that we can move forward with some certainty?

Anthony Mangnall: The hon. Gentleman and I served for a long time on the International Trade Committee, as it was previously known, and I should start my response to him by paying enormous credit to the Secretary of State, who came in front of the Committee a number of times, and who wrote to the Leader of the House to ask for time to debate CPTTP within the CRaG period. I am afraid that my ire and irritation at our not having secured that time must now be focused on the Leader of the House, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say there are simple steps that we can take to make sure that this House is properly briefed on these issues. One of them—I absolutely declare my interest—would be to give Privy Counsellor status to members of  the Business and Trade Committee. I do not think anyone would disagree with that suggestion. It would certainly be a very popular move, and when it has been mentioned in the Committee, it has been welcomed with open arms. I am glad that it has the approval of the House. But, in all seriousness, there has to be a set process and the CRaG mechanism allows us that opportunity if done properly. It is there and it must be reformed, regardless of who is in government. It is in the interests of the entire House to amend and implement CRaG.

Iain Duncan Smith: I fully agree with my hon. Friend’s wider purpose, but I come back to the point that Lord Lisvane made very clearly, which is that we still do not have the ability to debate the entry of a security risk country. He pointed out that CRaG does not do that because of its nature. I agree with my hon. Friend’s wider point that CRaG must be reformed, but we have a Bill going through the House at the moment and this is a better time to at least get a foothold in that debate rather than say that we will do it another time.

Anthony Mangnall: I really do accept the point that my right hon. Friend makes—how could I disagree when he is making that absolutely essential argument on national security. But what he is asking for might be viewed in very different terms by the other 11 members of the CPTPP. There are standards to join the CPTPP in the first place that would prevent China from joining unless it improved its act. He has talked about the lessening of appetites in places such as Australia for China to join. I am not sure whether that is the case, but there is a standard within the CPTPP that would prevent China from joining, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has already remarked, we have a veto in this instance. I think this is more about ensuring that we have a debate and a vote in this place on the values of a trade agreement. If we are worried about a new accession to the CPTPP, it is for us to make that case to the Secretaries of State in the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade, and for them to go back to the other 11 countries and make the case in that way.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I welcome almost everything that the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend—is saying, he and I having worked together a lot on this issue, but the reality is that other countries in the CPTPP have arrangements that allow their Parliaments to have deliberations on significant treaty changes and on the incoming of new members. We are talking not about the CPTPP arrangements but about our arrangements for authorising our Government to go ahead and agree. Surely he must agree that it would not undermine the CPTPP if we were to make our own arrangements on how we were to instruct our Government.

Anthony Mangnall: Forgive me if it sounds trite to say that I worry about mission creep, but if we did that on this, might we not also do it for the World Health Organisation, or for any other body that might be under suspicion of having some adverse state actor involved in it? I worry about how we go about this. I worry about Parliament always trying to have a say and slowing the process of how our trade agreements are signed and ratified. We need to be efficient and quick in the way we  do it, but we must also ensure that we have the opportunity for debate, as we have today in this debate on the merits of the three chapters in the Bill.
I want to end with a parting shot. As has been mentioned by the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), we were told that we would have the opportunity to debate the full 30 chapters of the CPTPP within CRaG, and it is disappointing that we do not have that. The Government—the Secretary of State and the Minister—have done an amazing job in engaging with the Committee, but this is a serious disappointment. It lessens the progress that has been made to date on signing new trade agreements and ensuring that this place has a say on our future.

Sarah Green: I stand to speak to new clause 12, which stands in my name, and also to new clauses 11 and 13. I would like to begin by stating once again that the Liberal Democrats want to see an ambitious trade policy aimed at creating opportunities for British firms around the world and new jobs here in our country. The Bill and our accession to the CPTPP are a step in that direction. The point has been well made, in this House and in the other place, that the projections in the Government’s own impact assessment are for GDP growth of just 0.06% by 2040, so although the UK’s accession to the trading bloc can and should be welcomed, the cause for celebration is limited.
I would like to speak to three new clauses that aim to address some key issues with the Bill and the UK’s accession. New clause 12 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the CPTPP’s performers’ rights provisions. We know the worries of our creative industries surrounding the Bill. The lack of reciprocal agreements for UK artists in CPTPP countries leaves our creatives exposed. The UK is rightly proud of our world-leading creative industries and we should also be proud of a world-leading intellectual property regime. We must be sure that this Bill and this trade deal do nothing to jeopardise that. There is a need for clarity and certainty in this area, and that is why I tabled new clause 12, which I hope Members will support.
New clause 13 would require the Government to conduct a review examining how the implementation of the treaty affects the costs faced by exporting and importing businesses in the UK. That report would have to consider the existing costs that those businesses were already facing as a result of trade regulations. We know that the stated ambition of the Government is that the deal will minimise red tape and trade regulations when trading with other CPTPP countries, which is a welcome goal. However, the British Chambers of Commerce has found that almost two fifths of businesses list regulations and red tape as a significant barrier to exporting. We need to be assured that our businesses will be supported to trade and flourish. With that in mind, it will be worth while, after our accession, to take the time to assess how the deal and the wider trade regulation landscape are affecting British businesses. That is the purpose of new clause 13.
It is clear that the CPTPP will likely grow over time as new countries join and accede to the deal, which will bring new opportunities but may also pose risks. The potential accession of China is one example, and the concerns regarding that possibility have been well discussed  by colleagues in this Chamber and the other place. New clause 11 would require the Government to provide an impact assessment on the accession of countries that have made, and will make, a formal request to join the CPTPP. This will allow us to have a clear and informed vision of what the accession of each new country would mean for the UK. I believe this would be a reasonable and common-sense measure.
I finish by echoing what has already been said about parliamentary scrutiny. It is welcome that we are having this debate today but, in reality, we are debating a very limited and narrow Bill. We need proper parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals, and I ask the Government to ensure that it happens in future.

John Martin McDonnell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan) on his excellent speech. He mentioned that he has been elected at the tail-end of a Government and that an election is coming soon. I reassure him that the diligence he has already demonstrated in this House and his constituency should secure his re-election. It is wonderful to hear a Member speaking for a constituency with its accent.
I will address amendment 2 and new clause 8, although I support virtually every amendment that has been tabled, which shows the weakness of the process by which we have examined this treaty. I have been involved in discussions with the Secretary of State and the Minister over a number of months on ISDS, and I am concerned about the contradiction between their refusal to secure a side letter with regard to this treaty and what happened with regard to Australia and New Zealand. The negotiating brief for the Canadian free trade agreement also had a specific remit to prevent an ISDS process. I have never got to the bottom of that contradiction.
Amendment 2 follows our lengthy debate about the scrutiny of treaties. I have not given notice to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) that I will be referring to him in the Chamber, although I am not sure that we have to give notice ahead of praising, rather than criticising, another Member. I am a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which he chairs, and he has become the 21st-century Walter Bagehot, with a solid mixture of Trollope. He steered our discussions on the formal process for examining treaties with immense skill, drawing on a range of evidence that led to consensus—there is almost consensus in the Chamber at the moment—and this is what our report says:
“CRAG has been an insufficient legislative tool to facilitate meaningful Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties… the current legislation provides only a passive role for Parliament and as such there is no opportunity for Parliament to express its explicit approval or disapproval of a treaty.”
That is a common theme of all the debates. We have to do better than this.
Having read the report, the worry is that the Government have not responded positively by trying to get some order, particularly on the early negotiating processes and the debates that should take place. The Committee’s general view on this treaty, like the others, is that Parliament has been largely bypassed. We were offered no say on the Government’s negotiating objectives at the earliest stage, which is important, and no oversight  of the negotiations as they progressed. Now we are refused a vote on the final terms of accession. This is not acceptable as a democratic process. The formal CRaG period, under which we can nominally have a say on the agreement, concludes this Friday, after a 21-day period. We are offered no vote or even a debate on the substantive terms of the CPTPP during this period, and accession is likely to receive our consent without any of us being given a single vote.
As I mentioned to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I have tabled a prayer to try to secure a time extension to enable the Government to bring forward time for a debate. My view is exactly the same as his: we are debating a narrow, technical, implementing Bill and that is no substitute for a confirmatory debate and vote on the accession itself. I agree with the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, who has raised this issue with the Government in correspondence over the past two weeks. It is preposterous for the Government then to say with a straight face that there is not parliamentary time to have such a debate, given our current sitting arrangements. Those who have been here for as long as me, or perhaps even longer, will know that there has not been a problem on parliamentary time in the past, as we have simply found the time and sat and gone through the business when it is so important.
My amendment 2 seeks to address that wrong by formalising a requirement for the Government to ask for Parliament’s consent for the UK’s accession to the CPTPP. That is a basic democratic point of principle. If the Government do not accept that, I come back to the urgings of Members from across the House and say that I hope the Government will take seriously the recommendations of the PACAC report for reform of the process overall. We are dealing with an undemocratic structure. The PACAC report’s incredibly practical proposals are for a sifting process, a sifting Committee, the identification of treaties that require longer consideration and giving the House itself a proper process of democratic scrutiny and democratic decision.
I shall deal briefly with new clause 8, which stands in my name and deals with the labour chapter of the CPTPP. I have raised this issue before, and the point has been made by a number of colleagues, the TUC, in particular, and various other campaigning organisations throughout this ratification process. The labour provisions of the CPTPP are outdated and inadequate. This treaty will include a number of countries, some of which have been mentioned, with the prospect of others joining, where abuses of labour rights are widespread. Putting in place effective labour provisions is therefore vital in any treaty we undertake.
That view has been expressed across the House for a number of years now, but let me give some examples. In Brunei and Vietnam, independent trade unions are banned—they are not allowed legally to operate. In Malaysia, which has been mentioned in our previous debates, forced labour has been documented extensively. That issue has been raised in this House time and again.
In that context, it is crucial that the CPTPP’s labour provisions are readily enforceable and are linked to the removal of trade preferences, to ensure that membership does not lead to a race to the bottom on labour standards, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman said. I agree with him on the fear about China, because union colleagues  of mine from Hong Kong, whom I have worked with for decades, are in prison at the moment purely and simply because they are trade unionists and have stood up for democratic rights.

Iain Duncan Smith: The point I was trying to make is that there is also an economic issue here. If China practises slave or forced labour, as it does on a wide scale, it undercuts all the reasonable labour. One good example is that the UK is desperately trying to get more solar arrays, but the polysilicon that is critical to those is mined in Xinjiang under slave labour conditions. No wonder everybody else is undercut, but we still pay for this.

John Martin McDonnell: It is a point of economic principle that such things will occur if we do not have proper rights or regulations installed, or the appropriate sanctions when anything takes place. At the moment, those are not contained in the treaty. One member state can challenge another for failing to uphold labour rights, but, as we have seen time and again across various treaties, it is notoriously difficult to prove that such failure has affected trade. To challenge those labour practices, we have to demonstrate the effect on trade, but, under current provisions, that is almost impossible to do.
The International Trade Union Confederation has rightly pointed to the ability of states to buy their way out of issues via dispute settlement, as the amount of compensation has been calculated time and again as a fraction of the violation’s impact on trade. So the sanctions do not work, and they will not work under this treaty.
The ineffectual nature of the labour rights chapter is demonstrated by the fact that, since the agreement’s conclusion in 2018, no Government have challenged another for abusing labour rights. It is not working. So again, if the Government are not going to accept this new clause, I just hope a future Government will consider the issue and that we will then be able to raise it with the CPTPP partner countries through the formal review process, so that labour protections can eventually be significantly strengthened. That may well come under a new Government after the election, but I can reassure the whole House that a number of us will not drop this issue. It will come back time. We will raise the importance of getting proper democratic scrutiny and, on issues such as labour rights, of ensuring that we protect both our own economy and workers themselves from the exploitation that has been evidenced so succinctly in various debates in this House.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan). What a great way of upstaging his sister a week after her wedding—after a by-election is forced, he goes on to win it. But I suspect that it was a happy moment for all the family, and it is a delight to have him here.
I have tabled two new clauses. I have sat on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and, in its previous iteration, the International Trade Committee, when we scrutinised the Bill almost, I felt, to death. The problem with scrutiny without any teeth is that words produced in Parliament all the time are  lost in the ether. The reality is that, unless there is debate in the main Chamber, there is not the right body of weight behind those words and those concerns.
It is clear to me that we need to change constitutional make-up of how we do trade deals. I support everything that PACAC has said, of course, but personally I would go further. I think we do need legislative changes to CRaG, despite the fact that we could make some changes through trust—that would be a good start. The reality is that, since we left the European Union—I know we are not meant to go on about that—this House has had less scrutiny over trade deals than we did before. It used to be that consent was required, which would go via the European Scrutiny Committee. That consent was required to be sent to the European Union before a trade deal could be signed off.
We know that in other places around Europe, legislators did hold back inappropriate trade deals. The EU-Canada free trade deal, for example, was held back by the Wallonian Parliament because it failed to address things such as workers’ rights, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned. The deal was renegotiated and the Europeans got a better deal. We could have done that at any step of the way when we were in Europe, but now we are out of the EU, we are less able to do so and less able to hold our negotiating person to account. Our negotiating person at that point was the European Commission. Our negotiating people now are our Ministers and civil servants, but we are less able to hold them to account. We cannot set their negotiating mandate or stop a trade deal, as we were able to do before. Yes, we can delay it, and yes, this Minister is fantastic in coming to be held to account through questioning, but the hard stop that means that people listen to you rather than just having a nice debating club with you has now been lost. We need to reflect that changing world.

Mark Garnier: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He and I have discussed this at great length in two Committees that we have both sat on. I am hugely sympathetic to every point that he is making, but there is one counter-argument that has not yet been put forward. The position of our negotiators in striking these deals in the first place could be slightly weakened by the fact that they would then have to check back with the legislature on whether or not it will ratify. Were we to take the final decision away from our negotiators, they would not be able to negotiate such a strong deal. I put that forward not necessarily as a definitive answer, but as a counter-argument.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Some people claim that that would happen, but others claim that it would strengthen our position. When the EU says, “This is our backstop,” we know that it is not bluffing because the backstop has been set by the EU Parliament. Now, negotiators can say, “Well, we know that that is not really the backstop, because you can go away and cajole your Back Benchers to vote this through anyway,” whereas in other systems, they can say, “I’m sorry, but the Senate will not approve this because the committee is holding my feet to the fire.”
However, there are other ways of doing it. As other Members have mentioned, we could allow the matter to have Privy Council status and meet in camera, to allow involvement in negotiations. In multilateral processes,  other Governments embed parliamentarians in their negotiating teams. The Norwegians, for example, embed parliamentarians in their WTO negotiating teams in the day-to-day back and forth. Of course, in Norway, the WTO is dealt with by a different department from bilateral treaties, so there is a slightly different way of negotiating different kinds of deals. We can determine what kind of deal it is from the level of negotiation and whether Parliament is involved. If Norway were dealing with the CPTPP, parliamentarians would be embedded in that process, but if it were dealing with the Japan deal, they would not.
There are granularities of parliamentary overview and scrutiny, but almost all systems have developed them over the past 50 years as trade deals have basically become international lawmaking processes rather than dealing just with trade—they deal with all aspects of our life. However, we effectively paused our processes when we joined the European Union, and we have now reverted to where we were before joining. Although I accept that our process are now in the CRaG law, they have not evolved properly.
Let me address my new clause 2. Around 90% of the world’s oil palm trees are grown in just a few islands in Malaysia and Indonesia. Currently, less than 20% of that palm oil has received certification for sustainable palm oil forestry. The CPTPP will remove tariffs from palm oil. Of course, the aim of removing tariffs is to increase trade, so it seems implausible to say that we do not think it will increase the amount of palm oil in the UK that comes from unsustainable forests. The same could be true of tropical woods. Two of the 11 forests that supply our tropical woods and are identified as in danger are in the CPTPP region, but they have no additional protection.

Anthony Mangnall: First, Indonesia is not part of CPTPP. It is also important to note that the Malaysians have introduced a certification and standard for more sustainable palm oil plantation. I am not saying that that is perfection—it certainly is not, there is a lot further to go—but it is a good example of how, by forming a trade agreement through CPTPP, we can raise standards, not lower them.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly sound point. That is why my amendment does not say that we should not join the CPTPP, or that we should disallow it for those purposes. It would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a monitoring report on the level of unsustainable palm oil and forest products that are entering this country before we join the CPTPP, and to report regularly on those imports. If and when this House, or Ministers themselves, believe that action is needed, the data will be there to prove it. If we do not collect that data, we will not know, and we will be blind to the problem.
The same is true of our obligations on climate change and biodiversity. Personally, I would prefer a stronger environmental section in the Bill, but it is what it is. However, it should be noted that 119 pesticides that are permitted in CPTPP countries are not permitted in this country, 56 of which are considered to be highly harmful to human beings. Yes, we have standards for food, but there are no production standards, and there are no  standards for pesticides that are not food-based. The problems with some of those pesticides—the killing of bees and other wildlife—are not just about human consumption: sometimes, those pesticides are banned not because they harm human beings, but because they harm the fauna and flora around us. When we import goods that contain them, they can enter the food chain; even worse, they can enter the animal food chain, which is not regulated by the same food standards and therefore causes huge problems. We need Government oversight of those points to ensure that we do not end up damaging some of our crops through pesticides that we ourselves have banned.
Turning to new clause 3, I am particularly concerned about ISDS. At long last, the Government have agreed that we should withdraw from the energy charter treaty, primarily because in a changing world, we need to make changes to our energy policy to make it more green. Our continual inclusion in the energy charter treaty would bind us to ISDS agreements, which we have seen targeted at a number of European states that have made moves to increase their environmentally friendly sources of energy. That is now a danger to us: even though we have not lost an ISDS case, it is a danger to our future and to policymaking. If we have made that case for energy, I think the same case could be made for almost all our arrangements.
It is useful to note that our agreements with Australia, New Zealand and Japan—all of which are part of the CPTPP—did not include ISDS. In fact, the agreement with Japan included a clause to say that we would not enact ISDS unless we signed or entered into another agreement that includes it, so the very fact that this agreement includes ISDS triggers a number of ISDS courts in other agreements that we have signed, which I think is risky and dangerous. We need a report on the risks that ISDS poses to the UK, because we could have rogue investors who end up taking us to court even if it is against the national interest of the two respective states. Of course, citizens cannot access ISDS—it is not a global court where citizens who have been harmed can seek redress from a Government. Only corporations that have invested in a particular country can do so.
ISDS actually means that corporations that invest into Britain from outside have higher protections than a British corporation that invests in plants here. I think it is totally wrong that a British corporation is more vulnerable to changing policy than a foreign one. It should be a level playing field, but at the moment, a British corporation that has invested here has no recourse to ISDS if policy changes in Britain, but corporations from outside do—the Minister is frowning a bit, so I was just trying to explain the difference. There is also a well recorded chilling effect from ISDS that we must be particularly aware of.
Fundamentally—again, I go back to the thing that we are not meant to mention—under the European Union, at least there were open courts to which we appointed judges. ISDS means secret tribunals that do not always have British judges, so there is a problem there. If we are meant to be taking back control, surely we should be taking power away from secret courts and allowing sunlight to be the justice that we seek.
Apart from the matters covered by the two new clauses I have tabled, I think this treaty is a step in the right direction. We should support it, but I wish the  Government had negotiated as well as New Zealand and other countries that sought and won protections that, I am afraid, our Ministers failed to even bother seeking.

Stella Creasy: Like everybody else, let me start with a moment of consensus. It was a privilege to be present for the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan). On my visit to his constituency, I did not get to see the beacon that he mentioned, but that is clearly an oversight on my part and I hope to rectify it at some point. May I be the first to congratulate his sister on her wedding? Brothers who usurp their sisters are brave men, and only being elected to this place is a justifiable reason for doing so.
I am going to contradict my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) in that I think we have to talk about Brexit in this debate, not least because the Government have talked about Brexit in promoting the benefits of the CPTPP, and the people of the UK deserve better. They need to understand what is being offered to them and what is being done to reflect their growing recognition of the severe damage that this Tory hard Brexit has done to the British economy and to British businesses.
I rise to support not only the amendments tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues, but the concerns that have been raised about democratic oversight and scrutiny of those who might join the CPTPP. I will also speak to new clause 9, which I have tabled. I am pleased to say that it has support from across the House, including among people who disagree on whether Brexit has been a good idea. When so much fantasy has dominated the debate, it is about time we had some facts.
New clause 9 refers to the very real experience of British business right now of the damage that Brexit has done. Research suggests that £140 billion has already been drained from the economy; those trading opportunities and business opportunities have gone. The average Briton is £2,000 worse off, and in my London constituency people are £3,500 worse off. British businesses are crying out for support and help with trade. Research from the University of Sussex last year showed that only 6% were positive about Brexit, and seven in 10 manufacturers reported problems with their supply chain. That is why it matters that we look at the CPTPP.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am here not to oppose joining the CPTPP, but to hold the Government to account. It is Government Ministers, as well as their chums and various right-wing think-tanks, who promoted the idea that we should not worry about the damage that Brexit under their watch has done to our economy, because programmes such as the CPTPP were going to replace all those trading opportunities and be the hallowed ground that British business could look to.
The Trade Secretary herself said:
“Our accession to CPTPP sends a powerful signal that the UK is open for business and using our post-Brexit freedoms to reach out to new markets around the world”.
She is one of the milder advocates for the idea that not only has Brexit been a roaring success, but that the CPTPP will add to those trading opportunities.
“It’s no exaggeration to say that CPTPP+UK is an equivalent economic power to the EU-28”,
said Shanker Singham of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Goodness me, what a claim to be making. I tabled new clause 9 because I think British business and this place deserve to know the truth about the relative merits of such partnerships and the challenges to our businesses and communities, particularly small and medium-sized businesses struggling with the impact of Brexit, as well as whether help is indeed coming.
The honest truth is that nobody wants to name consistently the impact of this partnership deal, not even the Secretary of State herself. Mark Littlewood, who is also from the Institute of Economic Affairs, has claimed:
“The benefits to Britain will likely be significantly greater than some official estimates driven by static economic models.”
The challenge to that argument is that, when we ask anybody who promotes it what the actual data might be—where the evidence is that this will be the help needed by British businesses that are being clobbered by Brexit, with all the rules, regulations and tariffs they are now facing—we get the Facebook setting response of “It’s complicated”. That is not good enough for British business.
Even the Secretary of State tried that model with the Business and Trade Committee, telling it that she disputed the idea that the results or the benefits to British businesses of joining the CPTPP would be small, but she could not give an alternative model or an alternative number to give people some crumb of hope that they might actually solve the problems in their supply chain.
All we are left with are the claims of greatness—claims that disintegrate on hard contact with the here and now about what is actually being proposed and what actual damage has been done by Brexit. Here and now, British businesses find that Brexit border taxes are increasing, although I note that today in a written ministerial statement the Government have decided to rewrite some of those Brexit border taxes, which are due to come in at the end of April. So that is great for British businesses! That is stability and planning, when even the Government do not know how much they are going to charge people. The CPTPP is supposed to reduce the tariffs and non-tariff barriers we now face as a direct result of having left the European Union, because after all it is about reducing tariff barriers.
Let us look at the data we have to hand and whether we can really judge this partnership as offering that salvation. It has been claimed again, this time by The Daily Telegraph, that the bloc will represent 16% of global GDP, “leap-frogging the combined EU.” It is currently 10% of global GDP—but you know the Telegraph and figures—compared with 14% for the European Union. It is said that the CPTPP member countries have a combined population of 500 million and a GDP of £9 trillion. That is fantastic; we can be part of trading with them—nobody would dispute that that would be helpful to British businesses. There is a small reference point to take into account, however. Although the EU is of a similar size with a GDP of £11 trillion, the total value of our trade with the EU is £557 billion. That is 45% of our total trade, but that trade is falling as a direct result of Brexit, because it used to account for 55% of UK exports.
That is because, for all the smoke and mirrors and all the bluster about the CPTPP, there is a simple fact: geography matters. We can fight many things in life but air miles and transportation costs are not among them.  Our ability to trade with our nearest neighbours easily and freely matters to British business far more than anything we could do with those further away. That is why the Government’s own impact assessment tells us that the CPTPP might only make 0.06% of difference to our GDP, or £2 billion. That is in part because we already have trade deals with most of the countries from when we had them as part of the EU. So only a further 0.33%—not 33%—of total UK trade will come under the new trade agreements.
The reality in all this and the conundrum we face is that this trade partnership will only really be a big deal if more countries join. I am sorry the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) is no longer in his place. He was disappointed that the United States of America were not part of the CPTPP. It will only be the game changer that people talk it up to be if more countries join. Then we would be looking at the Indo-Pacific region. Right here, right now, that is not what we are signing up to and that is not what is being offered to British business. That is why scrutiny and looking at who else might join matters, but it is also why new clause 9 matters. It is not fair to British business to suggest that help is coming when help there is none.
Membership of the CPTPP bears no comparison to EU membership. The sum it will generate is just one fiftieth of what the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates Brexit has already cost the UK economy. Indeed, it estimates that leaving the single market means that our GDP will be 4% less over the next 15 years, and some have estimated that GDP has already reduced by 5% as a result.
In 2022, the UK exported £340 billion-worth of goods and services to the EU. By way of comparison, we exported £64 billion-worth of goods and services to the CPTPP countries. New clause 9 is about being honest with British businesses about where those markets lie and where they should invest their time. It is also about understanding that free trade is not just about tariffs; it is also about regulations and the non-tariff changes we face. It is about understanding that this deal could lead to a lowering of food standards and problems with our food supply chain. It could affect our ability to sign a sanitary and phytosanitary deal with Europe that might help remove those silly Brexit border taxes which mean that in a couple of weeks our constituents are going to be asking us why there are food shortages and food inflation and loads of lorries queued up at Dover trying to get to Sevington. It could lead to challenges for our environment, too: my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) rightly raised questions about palm oil and deforestation. There is an absolute irony in those who championed Brexit and who now champion the CPTPP not seeming to understand what the investor-state dispute settlement provisions are and the lack of democratic accountability and lack of control we might have. I do not know who is taking back control under those circumstances, because it is behind closed doors.
Clearly, we could have been working on other deals as a country that would have made a bigger difference to British business. That is why the amendments and new clause are so important. Our constituents demand that we ask those questions and get those answers from  Government about the tariffs that are being retained and the impact that they will have, such as for British cheese producers. After all, Canada’s dairy industry is being protected—no Wensleydale for Winnipeg. The Trade and Agriculture Commission has warned of the potential increased costs of products due to tariff reductions, because UK producers will be held legally to higher sustainable standards. It is also about the rules of origin and details around what content is allowed.
Nobody is disputing that it is helpful to have content accumulation, because it helps with those difficulties within supply chains. Ministers have made much about that, but the reality is that had they spent as much time on the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, we would have far greater benefits for British business. That convention binds together more than 60 bilateral trade agreements within the Euro-Mediterranean area. It is not just the EU; it is much broader than that. There are 23 contracting parties, each with free trade agreements between them and a single rules-based origin protocol.
British businesses and those struggling supply chains could have got much more help, had we looked at what would really benefit them and just admitted the geography at stake in all this. We have short-changed ourselves and we are short-changing the British public if we try to claim that the CPTPP is in any way compensation for the damage that Brexit is doing.
In challenging those on the right who claim that the benefits of CPTPP will far outweigh the problems of Brexit—their hope and intention is that UK accession will kill off any likelihood that we will ever be part of the EU customs union or single market, as in that article in The Daily Telegraph—and that we could not have dynamic alignment, we have to recognise that that is just not true. There is plenty of evidence that whatever we did, we could rethink, and thank goodness for that. When things are at stake for British business, it is only right that we ask those questions. There is a process for changing regulations as we join the CPTPP that can be reversed if we can do a deal with Europe and work out what is in the best interests of British business. The only way we can do that is if we have the facts, and that is what new clause 9 is about.
Whether Members agreed with Brexit or opposed it, they should support new clause 9 and that ethos of having the data. If I am wrong and the CPTPP is the light at the end of the tunnel for British business, let us prove it, stand behind it and celebrate it. Nobody wants to see British business struggling as a result of Brexit with no help in sight. Every Member in this House should get behind the idea that we need good economic modelling. We should understand the extent of alignment, what new trade regulations on carbon pricing might do for British business and what is happening to trade volumes as a result of these partnerships. Without the new clause, we will not get that data. We will still get the Facebook answer of, “It’s complicated. We cannot really tell you.” All the while, global Britain is going-broke Britain—it is gutted Britain, with businesses across the country facing reams and reams of paperwork because of Brexit, with no end in sight, because this Government will not put British business first and renegotiate with Europe for a closer deal.
I am sorry that new clause 9 has not been selected for decision. I understand why, but I hope that Members will join me in demanding better for British business  when it comes not just to trade deals, but to our relationship with Europe, because every manager of a small business in this country right now will be looking at all the paperwork, all the complications, all the further regulations and excessive costs and frankly the fact that the Government cannot even tell them what they will charge them on the Brexit border tax, and they will be coming to our constituency surgeries asking for help. We owe them the respect of having an answer.

Richard Thomson: May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)? She makes an excellent case for rejoining the European Union. I could have scarcely put it better myself, and I hope her leader is listening. She makes some important points, any teasing aside, about the importance of economic data and of being able to model the impacts of the Government’s decisions.
I rise to speak to new clause 10, which is in my name, but first I would echo a number of voices from various parts of the Chamber that have expressed regret that we have before us a narrow Bill to ensure compliance with the requirements of the CPTPP, rather than a debate on the substance and fundamental principle. That is something on which, collectively, we could do much better.
The Scottish National party’s concerns about the impact of the CPTPP relate to the long term. However, if positive impacts are hard to find now, it is important that any negatives be identified early and, where possible, mitigated. In Committee, the Minister stated that there should be a “biennial monitoring report”, and a comprehensive evaluation report for the whole agreement prepared
“within five years of the UK’s accession.”––[Official Report, Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Public Bill Committee, 20 February 2024; c. 41.]
Although that is welcome, it may come a little late for any sectors that are immediately adversely affected.
We know from the various iterations of the post-Brexit agreement on trading arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European single market that even in the most carefully negotiated and meticulously scrutinised arrangements—and most were not—unforeseen adverse consequences can emerge that need to be addressed. That is why, in new clause 10, we call for what might be called an early warning report. It would, within six months, set out the impact CPTPP implementation has had on the UK’s trade in goods and services and on GDP. If new clause 9 had been selected for a vote, we would have voted for it, to make available that baseline of data.
The Scottish National party finds merit in all the amendments. In particular, we would be happy to offer support for new clause 1 in the name of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is no longer in his place. It is fair to say that at times there appears to be a disconnect between the UK Government’s trade policy and foreign policy. Surely there can be no doubt that the accession of other states to the CPTPP could present a risk to national security, to other trade, or to international relations objectives that His Majesty’s Government might determine on. As such, the very least that Members are entitled to expect is a report by the Government, and a  vote in the House of Commons on the accession of any economy designated as either a threat or a strategic challenge in the integrated review, so that Members can express their view on that accession.
I listened with interest as debate ping-ponged across the Chamber on how we might ensure better scrutiny of trade deals. That is a valuable debate to have. Obviously, different viewpoints have been expressed, but the Bill was an opportunity—and through amendments, there is still an opportunity—to ensure that information is brought to the House, so that Members can at least express a view on trade deals, even if that view is not binding on the Government.
That brings me to new clause 4, which to some extent has stolen the thunder of new clause 1. SNP Members will be happy to walk through the Lobby in support of new clause 4. If successfully passed, we would expect the resulting reports to cover the information requested in new clause 1.
I turn to investor-state dispute settlements. Our concerns about their potential application in the absence of side letters of exemption are well known. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), there are jurisdictions in the CPTPP’s membership that have a number of pension funds and investors with significant financial interests around the world, not least in the UK. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in Committee about why he did not feel it necessary to have measures in place to deal with this issue, but I remain thoroughly unconvinced of his argument that because the UK has never been subject to successful action under ISDS, it is unlikely to be subject to it in the future. I assume that the Minister has never been run over by a bus, but that he still takes the suitable precaution of looking both ways before crossing the road. We should not take this risk and open up the UK economy to the full scope of ISDS. Had new clause 3 been selected for a vote, we would have been happy to support it; it would have allowed for monitoring of ISDS’s implementation.
Finally, we support new clause 12 from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green). Although the Bill is narrow, it introduces a number of measures that affect performers and the manner in which they can assert their rights. It is important to understand as quickly as possible the practical impact of any unforeseen consequences, so we think it prudent to add new clause 12 to the Bill, and are happy to support it.

Gareth Thomas: I rise to speak to new clauses 4 to 7 and amendment 1. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to BPI. Let me at the outset say what a particular pleasure it was to listen to the maiden speech of my new hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan). His description of his constituents’ comments to him during the by-election will chime with all on the Opposition side of the House. It is clear that he will be an asset to the House, and I think it is fair to say that south London’s loss is undoubtedly Kingswood’s gain.
We support accession to the CPTPP because of its geopolitical benefits and the benefits to trade, relatively limited though they are set to be. Given that the Conservative party has delivered a recession, a cost of  living crisis and the worst growth rate in the G7, any uptick in trade and ultimately growth, however limited, would be welcome. There remain, however, a series of concerns about the Government’s approach to the CPTPP and trade deals. Our amendments and new clauses seek to address the weak arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals; the growing concern about the investor-state dispute settlement; and issues around performers’ rights, environmental, animal welfare and food standards, and the help that businesses will be offered to exploit the benefits, however limited, of this deal.
On new clause 1, I recognise the concerns articulated by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which were echoed by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox), and I am sympathetic to the former’s call for an enhanced role for Parliament. I am also sympathetic to new clause 11 from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), under which Parliament would require an assessment of the impact of any new country’s joining the CPTPP. However, I think we need to go further than both those new clauses do. Labour’s new clause 4 would require Ministers to publish such an impact assessment in Parliament and to give the House a vote on any new country joining the CPTPP. Given the security issues, the impact on particular sectors of the economy and on jobs in the UK, as well as the opportunities that an accession could bring, the British people surely have a right to expect this House to consider the merits, or lack of merit, of any new accessions to the CPTPP.
During the Lords debate, the Minister said that he thought that a new state joining CPTPP would trigger the CRaG process in the UK, but the CRaG process, as increasing numbers of Members across the House have largely come to agree, is clearly not fit for purpose; PACAC is the latest Committee to make that clear, in its recent report. New clause 4 provides the opportunity to reform part of that process. Let me refer to what was said by the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), and by the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). We were promised by the Secretary of State and by the Minister in Committee that there would be a debate under the CRaG process, as opposed to there being just this small implementing Bill. We now know that the debate will not happen, so that is another broken promise on trade.
The impact of new countries joining the CPTPP will vary, but could be considerable in certain situations. It is only right that this country expects the House to consider those impacts carefully. I hope that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, and the hon. Members for Totnes, and for Chesham and Amersham, can be persuaded to support our new clause. It would achieve what they want in practice and go further. With the leave of the House, we will press our new clause to a vote.
On new clause 5, I hesitate to damage the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell),  who made excellent speeches on the ISDS. Over the past 10 years, the marked acceleration in usage of the ISDS by large, litigious corporations to challenge Governments’ climate-related or other environmental decisions has prompted concern at the highest levels in the US, in European capitals and at the UN, so much so that Governments across the world are increasingly excluding or revoking the ISDS provisions.
The problem with the ISDS is that it is secretive; it avoids perfectly effective domestic public legal systems; it discriminates against small and medium-sized businesses; it often prevents the voice of those with a genuine interest in the decisions from being heard; and it holds back environmental and other progressive public policy changes. Strikingly, the OECD could find no sustained evidence that the ISDS was key to securing and maintaining business investment. The Nuffield Trust’s briefing for today’s debate stated that the ISDS could enable companies to challenge some health regulations and NHS policies.
The US, Canada and the European Union have all taken steps to revoke the ISDS provisions in some of their major treaties. The average amount—this is just the published cases—that Governments have been forced to pay, from taxpayers’ money, is about $600 million for climate cases. It seems even more noteworthy that the UN Secretary-General’s special rapporteur on environment and human rights expressed concern just last September that the ISDS was a significant threat to the net zero transition, the Paris agreement and tackling climate change.
Some in government clearly share some of those concerns, as they wanted to exclude the ISDS from the bilateral trade deal with Canada, and supported its abolition from trade with the European Union. The Minister was somewhat evasive in Committee. Initially, he tried to duck questions on why the Government wanted to exclude the ISDS from a bilateral trade agreement with Canada but were quite happy to leave it in the CPTPP for Canadian investors to use. Given that Ministers have signed side letters with Australia and New Zealand to disapply the ISDS between our countries in the CPTPP, it seems bizarre that they have not attempted a similar approach with Canada.
Just after Committee, the Government confirmed that they were pulling out of the energy charter treaty, in which ISDS arrangements play a major role, saying that it does not fit with net zero ambitions. The Minister might want to try again to explain why it is essential that we remain committed to the ISDS elements of the CPTPP. It is time for a clear-eyed assessment of the risk that the ISDS poses to our interests. With the leave of the House, the Opposition will press new clause 5 to a vote.
There continue to be significant concerns about the environmental impact of accession to the CPTPP, and the impact on food standards and on animal welfare. The CPTPP covers two of the 11 deforestation fronts expected to account for 80% of deforestation by 2030. A range of environmental groups are very concerned that when the UK joins the CPTPP, preferential access to our markets will be created as a result of the removal of tariffs on palm oil. That could increase demand for products from threatened zones and exacerbate the risk of further deforestation. Ministers still have not published —never mind presented to this House—deforestation due diligence legislation under section 17 of the Environment Act 2021, so it is difficult to accept Ministers’  claims that they are fully committed to our climate change targets, and to protecting important sources of global biodiversity.
On food standards, deep concerns remain that, despite their protestations, the deals that Ministers have negotiated, including the CPTPP, will allow into the UK ever more food produced to lower standards, particularly animal welfare standards. The whole House will remember the words of the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who told the House that the Minister and his colleagues had given away
“far too much for far too little”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
when they negotiated the UK-Australia free trade agreement. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Farmers Union, in particular, have raised concerns that new tariffs negotiated with Mexico and Canada will leave farmers in the UK much more vulnerable to imported eggs, pork and chicken that are produced to standards that would be illegal in the UK. The Pesticide Action Network UK raised concerns acknowledged by the Trade and Agriculture Commission—concerns also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle)—that more food produced using pesticides banned in the UK will be imported into the UK
New clause 7 would require Ministers to publish a plan to help businesses benefit from the new trade deal. It is striking that the Office for Budget Responsibility, in its recent Budget analysis, made it clear that trade will make a negligible contribution to growth through to 2028 under Conservative party plans. We remember that the Secretary of State was appointed and within weeks exports began to fall. Then the Minister of State was reappointed to the brief and exports fell even further. Who could possibly have expected that to happen? Ministers have cut funding for trade missions led by business groups themselves, and cut funding for small and medium-sized enterprises to get to trade shows to open up new markets for themselves. The Government website for helping exporters is so poor that some firms use other countries’ websites to find where there might be opportunities. Ministers could and should be doing a whole lot better to support our businesses to take advantage of any benefits in trade deals.
New clause 7 would require Ministers, once the accession process is over, to publish a clear implementation plan to help businesses benefit from CPTPP. Preference utilisation rates for other trade deals certainly do not offer any grounds for complacency. Given that exports under the Conservative party have performed worse than every other member of the G7 bar Japan over the last decade, it was striking that the Chancellor had nothing to offer exporters and, strikingly, no mention of any plan to help British business exploit our coming membership of CPTPP in his recent Budget. For those reasons, I am sympathetic to new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson).
On amendment 1, as the Minister knows and as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham set out, there remain serious doubts from industry about whether the changes the Bill allows for in relation to the UK’s copyright framework are actually required. We have had different explanations for the changes from Ministers.  At one point they were due to the CPTPP. On another occasion they were being made to comply with other international treaty obligations signed decades ago. What is clear is that the changes could have a significant impact on the ability of the music industry to support new British artists.
Because of those concerns, Ministers were forced to bring forward a consultation on the changes. The consultation will not finish until after the Bill has completed its passage through both Houses. In the worst-case scenario estimated by the Intellectual Property Office, the changes could cost over £100 million. It is likely that Royal Assent will have been granted before we know the outcome of the consultation process. Ministers were forced to bring this issue forward, which I have to say is just the latest example of, at best, a half-hearted approach to the scrutiny of trade issues by those on the Treasury Bench.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: My hon. Friend is making an excellent, excellent speech. [Interruption.] Well, he knows it anyway, but there is nothing wrong with praising. Is it not also a sign of how the Government, time and again, let down our creative industries? If it were steel or farming, Conservative Members would be in the ear of Ministers through their trade partnership committees, but creative industries are locked out of many of them and ignored. That is why Labour has put forward a plan to put creative industries at the heart of our economic development.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is generous in his description of my speech—I am grateful to him—and absolutely right about the importance of Labour’s plan for the creative sector.
Reform of the UK’s copyright framework should not be taken lightly, and it should only follow proper and well-considered consultation. Otherwise, we risk endangering our gold standard of protection for our vital creative sector. I gently suggest to the House that the reforms allowed for under clause 5 should not have been shoehorned into this Bill, and certainly not without a thorough consultation having taken place first. In that regard we are sympathetic to the merits of new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. We will continue to scrutinise developments in this area, and we hope that Ministers will reach a final decision, after the consultation, that will not have the adverse impact that is feared by some outside the House.
As I have said, I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown in new clauses 2 and 3, and I therefore hope he will join us with enthusiasm in the Lobby later today. Similarly, I share the desire of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for much greater adherence to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation. We raised this issue in Committee, and as I said earlier, I share his frustration—and that of other Members—that Ministers have not allowed the House a substantive debate under the CRaG process.

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech, is right to underline the point about ILO obligations. In the 2022 Queen’s Speech we were promised an updating of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that would have required much stronger action and transparency on supply chains in order to eliminate  forced labour. That measure seems to have disappeared, so we must insist on more robust action in our trade agreements if we are to wipe out the scandal of modern slavery.

Gareth Thomas: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ministers will have heard his point; whether they will act on it remains to be seen, but I certainly hope they do. If we are lucky enough to be elected at the next general election, we will certainly work with the ILO to try to drive better adherence to its conventions.
Last but not least, I share the ambition of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, who made a powerful speech, for a much more open dialogue on trade and the axing of more of the red tape, bureaucracy and barriers to trade with European markets thrown up by the poor negotiating skills of the last Prime Minister but two.
There remain, in particular, serious concerns about scrutiny of trade agreements and about the damage that ISDS provisions could do, so we will, with the leave of the House, press new clauses 4 and 5 to a vote.

Greg Hands: I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debates on this important Bill. Let me begin with the new clauses relating to new accessions to the CPTPP: new clause 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—who always demonstrates his passion on this important matter—new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green).
As the House may know, there is no rule within the CPTPP that requires new applicants to be dealt with on a “first come, first served” basis. Rather, it has been agreed within the group that applicant economies must meet three important criteria—called the Auckland principles—and it is on those key principles that applications will be assessed. Applicants must: first, be willing and able to meet the high standards of the agreement; secondly, have a demonstrated pattern of complying with their trade commitments; and thirdly, be able to command consensus of the CPTPP parties. Those strong criteria will be applied to each accession application. It is right that we in the United Kingdom, as a new member of the CPTPP group, work within the principles of the group to achieve a consensus decision.
I remind the House that while the UK rightly participates in discussions on this topic with CPTPP parties, we will only have a formal say over an application post-ratification and entry into force of the agreement. It is therefore crucial that we ratify the agreement and become a party, so that we can work with CPTPP members decisively on each current and future application. With that in mind, it would not be appropriate for the Government to give a running commentary on individual applicants, not least because to be drawn on individual applicants now, ahead of the UK becoming a party to the agreement, could have an impact on our ability to achieve that important goal of ensuring that the CPTPP enters into force. I should also make it clear that our own accession process has set a strong precedent. The robust experience that the UK has undergone has reinforced the high standards and proved that the bar is not easy to meet for any aspirant.
Regarding the scrutiny of any hypothetical future accession, I can assure the House that any accession of a new party to the CPTPP would require an amendment to the terms of the CPTPP. Therefore, as with the UK’s accession protocol, our firm intention is that such a future accession would be subject to the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—the CRaG process. I assure the House that CRaG is applicable to plurilateral agreements such as the CPTPP. The Act makes no distinction between bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral treaties as outlined in section 25 of CRaG.

Liam Byrne: The Minister is being characteristically generous in giving way. We obviously sought a debate under CRaG for this treaty. The Secretary of State, who is now in her place, told our Committee that she supported that, but the Leader of the House then refused to make Government time available for that debate. What further assurances can the Minister give us that there would indeed be a debate if the treaty was changed in the way that he described?

Greg Hands: The Government’s position is unchanged. It is always the desire of the Government, as expressed by the Secretary of State in writing to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman as Chair of the Select Committee, to urge and to ask for there to be a debate, but that will always be subject to the availability of parliamentary time. In a little bit, I will discuss the opportunities that there have been to scrutinise the CPTPP, which have been manifold in recent years.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands: I will give way a little later.
The Act makes no distinction between bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral treaties. In addition to Parliament being able to make its views clear through the CRaG process, let me remind the House that, as a dualist state, any legislation necessary to implement the treaty—such as alterations to tariffs legislation, to take a hypothetical example—would need to be fully scrutinised and passed by Parliament in the usual way. It is the long-standing policy of His Majesty’s Government not to ratify international agreements before all relevant domestic legislation is in place. Were Parliament to refuse to pass any necessary implementing legislation, ratification of an agreement would be delayed.
I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) for their opening speeches. Both are strong supporters of the UK joining the CPTPP. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset, who is the former Secretary of State, initiated these talks back in 2017 with me at his side, and successive Secretaries of State have given maximum priority to doing so. I am now in my fourth stint in this role, and it is fantastic to see his and my vision in 2017 now nearing fruition and being very close to UK ratification.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and I know that Parliament is perfectly capable of expressing a view on an international agreement and whether a country might join it, and the Government of the day would be very likely to take notice. In debates in this House over some years now, he has made clear his views on trade with China, has gained support and attention, and been effective in doing so. Indeed, he has  helped to achieve changes in policy in relation to supply chains in Xinjiang, and I agree with his support for Taiwan —a full member of the World Trade Organisation—as an important trade partner for the UK. We are positive about this kind of debate in the House.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who chairs the Select Committee, mentioned the scrutiny that there has been in this House for the CPTPP agreement, and he doubted whether there had been four debates. I had a slightly nagging feeling that I may actually remember each of the four debates, so I went back and checked the four debates, which started with the very first one that I responded to in April 2021. There have been four debates in this House and in the other House on the CPTPP. There have also been two oral ministerial statements and 16 written ministerial statements, and five separate Select Committees have taken evidence from Ministers and senior officials on the matter. There has been a Trade and Agriculture Commission report and a section 42 report. This is not an under-scrutinised trade agreement—rather the opposite. As has always been clear, we want the CPTPP to expand to fast-growing Asia-Pacific economies. I also agree with the Auckland principles.

Liam Byrne: rose—

Greg Hands: Of course I will give way—if the right hon. Gentleman first concedes that this has been a well-scrutinised trade deal.

Liam Byrne: Not quite. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the full history, but will he accept that the Secretary of State believed that we should have had a debate, under the CRaG principles, on the full treaty? This Bill covers only three of 30 treaties. It is a matter of disappointment to many of us in the House that even though the Secretary of State no doubt argued vigorously and passionately for the debate, the Leader of the House was unable to grant us time. That is not necessarily the precedent that we want to establish for further trade treaty scrutiny.

Greg Hands: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the last Labour Government, and he will remember that there are the vagaries of time available. Making an application to say that we would like there to be a debate is not the same as those who run the parliamentary timetable agreeing to there being one.
Let me move on to the new hon. Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan), who made a very accomplished and well delivered maiden speech. He spoke fondly of predecessors whom I know and like, such as Roger Berry and Rob Hayward. He won a keenly contested by-election—I have been to a few by-elections in recent years, and I was grateful to be given a bit of time off and to not go to Kingswood. None the less, I have great admiration for those who win by-elections. I have seen at close hand that they are a different kind of contest.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of his support for free trade and for rewarding hard work, and expressed sympathy for the Government, who have faced the challenges of covid and Ukraine. I agree with him on all of those issues, and the Government do too. I look forward to his continuing the tradition of an independent-minded Member for Kingswood—but please do not tell the Labour Whips Office.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) spoke passionately about trade and CPTPP. He is always probing on those issues.
Various amendments and new clauses that have been tabled ask for additional impact assessments. Before addressing some of those amendments directly, I would like to reassure the House that the Government will publish a biennial monitoring report and a comprehensive evaluation report of the agreement within five years of our accession.
Amendment 1 and new clause 12 would introduce commitments to publish impact assessments on the performers’ rights provisions in this Bill, and I will set out why we consider them to be unnecessary. The impacts of the rules depend in large part on how they are applied in particular cases through secondary legislation made under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. That secondary legislation may restrict or extend particular rights to particular countries. Wherever the Government intend to make significant changes to the secondary legislation, we will engage with affected industries and carry out an impact assessment. The Intellectual Property Office has done that recently with its consultation and its assessment of the impact of potential secondary legislation on the broadcasting and public playing of recorded music. A commitment to assess the impacts of the measures in this Bill is therefore unnecessary, and risks overlooking the effects of the secondary legislation.
I will now turn to new clauses 2 and 6, which broadly focus on environmental and other standards. I can provide assurance that the UK will continue to uphold our high environmental standards in respect of all our trade agreements, including CPTPP. As I have previously mentioned, the Government intend to publish a comprehensive ex post evaluation of the agreement within five years of the UK’s accession, and I can confirm that this evaluation will include an assessment of the environmental impacts of our accession. In addition, the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission was asked to scrutinise the UK’s accession protocol and produce a report. The TAC concluded in its advice, published on 7 December 2023, that
“CPTPP does not require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection”
in relation to the aforementioned areas.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: It is very welcome that there will be a five-year report. Will it include numbers on unsustainable palm oil and rainforest wood to ensure that we are not exploiting more than we are at the moment?

Greg Hands: That is exactly the sort of thing that I would expect the report to do. I must say that I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Government’s record when it comes to palm oil, because 86% of UK imports of palm oil were certified as sustainable in 2022—up from 16% under the last Labour Government in 2010, when we took office. Deforestation related to palm oil in Malaysia has fallen by 60% since 2012, according to the latest available figures, and we will keep working with countries such as Malaysia to build on that work.
As soon as parliamentary time allows, the Government will be tabling their forest risk commodities legislation under the Environment Act 2021, which will make it illegal for larger businesses operating in the UK to use  key forest risk commodities produced on land illegally occupied or used. The Government have confirmed that palm oil products would be included under the regulated commodities. Additionally, I once again refer to the report of the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission, which concluded that
“it is unlikely that CPTPP will lead to an increase in palm oil being grown on deforested land”.
Moving on to new clauses 3 and 5, relating to ISDS, the UK’s accession to CPTPP will benefit UK investors. I do not think the Opposition understand how business works. We support British businesses operating overseas. They create jobs in this country—jobs that the Labour party does not seem to like.

Dominic Raab: I thank my right hon. Friend for progressing CPTPP with all his usual energy, because it will boost trade and be of huge strategic significance. It is an opportunity of Brexit that must be grasped. On investor-state dispute resolution, he is absolutely right that we must not give way to the naysayers. It will be overwhelmingly in the UK’s interest, given the protections for UK businesses and exporters and the certainty it will provide in the massive growth region of the Indo-Pacific.

Greg Hands: My right hon. Friend also played a really important role in getting CPTPP through. I remember our joint visit to Vietnam in 2021, when we argued for Vietnamese support. He is right to say that it is important to remember that the UK has never lost an ISDS case. Equally, it is important for us to protect UK businesses operating abroad. They provide jobs and secure livelihoods at home. I find it astonishing that the Opposition, as they lurch ever leftwards, seem to forget that the whole time.
I can assure the House that the UK already has investment agreements containing ISDS provisions with around 90 trading partners, including seven of the 11 CPTPP parties. The UK provides a welcoming investment environment with a non-discriminatory regime, strong rule of law and good governance. We are clear that, where we negotiate ISDS, we will not hinder our inherent right to regulate in the public interest, including in areas such as the environment and labour standards.
I turn to new clauses 7, 9, 10 and 13, which focus on the impacts that this deal will have on our businesses and our economy. The Government want UK businesses to benefit from the ambitious provisions in the CPTPP as far as possible after we accede, and we are working to raise awareness of the agreement and ensure that businesses have the knowledge they need to take advantage of the opportunities that CPTPP will present when it enters into force for the UK.
New clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), focuses on labour standards. I notice that there is no official Labour amendment focusing on labour standards. Maybe Labour does not care about labour any more, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman does. The CPTPP labour chapter includes binding provisions on fundamental labour rights and on hours of work, health and safety, and minimum wages. It reaffirms CPTPP parties’ obligations as members of the International Labour Organisation  and requires that parties do not waive or derogate from their domestic labour laws in order to encourage trade or investment.
Amendment 2, also tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, relates to the conformity assessment regulations referenced in the Bill. The amendment would allow changes to the conformity assessment regulations only following a motion to resolve against the ratification of the UK accession protocol first. I just think it would be unwise for us to pass an amendment to resolve against the ratification of UK accession in advance.
This has been a wide-ranging debate, and we have debated important issues. I particularly want to minute my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, who has rightly raised important questions about our trade with China, and to other right hon. and hon. Friends who have supported the process of the UK acceding to CPTPP.
I do not want to tempt fate, but this might be my last chance to speak on our accession in this House before the UK formally ratifies joining CPTPP. I and, I believe, the whole Government passionately believe that CPTPP offers a great future for the UK, and I have seen our accession through from being a novel idea in 2017 to ratification, and hopefully accession, in 2024. Not many of us in this place have been able to do that over a seven-year period, and I am grateful to all my ministerial colleagues, successive Prime Ministers who have supported CPTPP and my excellent Department for International Trade and Department for Business and Trade officials for being with me on this very exciting journey.

Iain Duncan Smith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4 - Report: accession of new states to the CPTPP

“(1) Before any decision is made by the Government on the accession of a new state to CPTPP under Chapter 30 of the CPTPP, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the potential benefits and impact of the accession of that candidate state on the United Kingdom.
(2) Both Houses of Parliament must be presented with a motion for resolution on the report under subsection (1).”—(Gareth Thomas.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 301.
Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5 - Review: Investor-State Dispute Settlement

“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the financial risk of the implementation of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement aspect of the Investment Chapter of the CPTPP, not more than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Gareth Thomas.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 305.
Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10 - Report on economic impact of implementation of CPTPP

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the economic impact of the implementation of the CPTPP.
(2) A report published under subsection (1) must include an analysis comparing the respective situation for each of the matters listed in subsection (3) prior to the implementation of the CPTPP with the situation post the implementation of the CPTPP.
(3) The matters which must be included in the comparative analysis contained in the report laid under subsection (1) are—
(a) the UK’s trade in goods;
(b) the UK’s trade in services; and
(c) UK GDP.”—(Richard Thomson.)
This new clause would require the Government to publish a comparative analysis of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP on UK trade and GDP.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 305.
Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 12 - Impact assessment: UK performers’ rights

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of performers' rights provisions in the CPTPP.
(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must include—
(a) consideration of the impact of performers’ rights provisions on qualifying individuals in the UK;
(b) an assessment of the reciprocity of rights across qualifying countries;
(c) consultation with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”—(Sarah Green.)
This new clause would mean the Government must publish an assessment of the impact the performer’s rights provisions in the CPTPP will have on qualifying individuals in the UK.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 306.
Question accordingly negatived.
Third Reading

Kemi Badenoch: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I would like to thank Members across the House and noble Lords in the other place for the interest they have shown in this legislation throughout its passage. The Bill may be narrow in scope, but the underlying agreement it relates to and the benefits it could bring for British business, the economy and the British people are wide-ranging. By acceding to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, we will strengthen our ties with some of the world’s most dynamic economies and gain greater access to the Indo-Pacific region, which will account for the majority of global growth and around half of the world’s middle-class consumers in the decades to come.
Crucially, acceding to the CPTPP will mean improved market access for UK exporters in existing CPTPP parties, including Malaysia and Brunei—our very first free trade deal with these fast-growing economies. In turn, the partnership will simplify supply chains and cut costs for innovative firms based here in the UK, such as Wrightbus, a long-established family-owned Northern Ireland bus manufacturer, which will benefit from opportunities to import parts at lower tariffs from Malaysia. We have also agreed more liberal rules of origin with Malaysia, making it simpler for British brands such as Jaguar Land Rover to export British-designed, British-made vehicles to that market at lower tariffs.
However, our future accession will be good not just for British businesses selling their goods abroad but for consumers here at home. It could provide consumers with wider choice and cheaper prices at the supermarket checkout, on everything from Chilean and Peruvian fruit juices to honey and chocolate from Mexico. Inward investment in the UK by CPTPP parties will be encouraged when we accede, building on some £182 billion-worth of investment in job-creating projects in 2021 alone.
As hon. Members will know, the Bill affects the whole of the UK. Clause 3 and the parts of the schedule relating to Government procurement engage the Sewel convention, so we have sought legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Let me reassure hon. Members that there has been regular engagement with the devolved Administrations before the Bill was introduced and throughout its passage at both Ministerial and official level. I thank the devolved Administrations’ Ministers and their teams for working so constructively with us. It is in part thanks to their efforts that the Scottish Parliament passed a legislative consent motion in February. The Welsh Government published a legislative consent motion on 5 March and recommended that consent be granted to clause 3 and relevant parts of the schedule. Due to a mis-step during the moving and consideration of the motion, that legislative consent was not granted. I understand there are plans for a further Senedd vote on legislative consent for clause 3 and relevant parts of the schedule. However, in the event that a further vote is not scheduled in the Senedd before Royal Assent, the UK Government will proceed with the Bill without consent from Wales.
Members will know that the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended when the Bill was introduced last November, which prevented us from seeking legislative consent at that time. However, my Department has engaged with Northern Ireland officials throughout this period, providing them with updates as the Bill has progressed through Parliament.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for her positive remarks about all the regions of the United Kingdom, which is good to hear. In her discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly, has there been an opportunity to engage with the businesses in Northern Ireland that have been holding things together, and the Ulster Farmers’ Union? The Secretary of State is always energetic when it comes to pursuing those matters, but it is important to have that reassurance.

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, and he is quite right. My right hon. Friend Minister for Trade Policy has engaged with them. In fact, upon the return of the Northern Ireland Assembly, he wrote to the Minister for Finance at the earliest opportunity to request legislative consent. I am grateful that the Minister agreed with the Bill’s devolution analysis and, in principle, to begin the legislative consent process. Nevertheless, we still face a challenging timeline and a pressing need for the Bill to complete its passage. That is vital to allow for secondary legislation to be made and for ratification of the UK’s accession protocol. As such, we cannot delay passage of the Bill to allow the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly greater time to consider legislative consent. That would jeopardise all the current ratification timelines. I recognise that the legislative consent process is normally concluded before the last amending stage in the second House. Given the timing of the return of the Northern Ireland Assembly, that has been extremely challenging, but I believe it is still right that we allow the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly as much time as we can to consider our request. In the event that legislative consent is not granted by the Northern Ireland Assembly before the deadline for Royal Assent, we will still have to proceed. Failing to do so would compromise the commitments we have made in our accession protocol.
On Second Reading, I outlined the wealth of benefits that will come with the UK’s accession to the CPTPP: the growth-spurring and business-boosting effect it will have on our economy. Since that time, we have had some spirited and worthwhile debates. I would particularly like to thank the hon. Members for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and for Gordon (Richard Thomson) for the constructive manner in which they scrutinised the legislation. I commend those Members who sat on the Public Bill Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Rupa Huq), who showed their great expertise as Chairs. I also thank the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) for expertly shepherding this legislation through the House with his consummate skill and good humour, and for delivering what appears to be a clean Bill. I will let Members review Hansard to see how many times my right hon. Friend reminded the hon. Member for Harrow West that he voted for CRaG. I think I heard that quite a lot throughout the debate.
It would be remiss of me not to mention a number of other Members by name for their valued input throughout the Bill’s passage, including my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), whose Second Reading speech and interventions made an excellent case not just for UK accession to CPTPP, but for the benefits of free trade more generally. I am also grateful to him for highlighting the scrutiny provided by the recent Trade and Agriculture Commission report on the UK’s agreement to accede to the CPTPP—a report that stated that the CPTPP does not require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection in relation to animal or plant life, health, animal welfare or environmental protection.
On Second Reading, we also heard useful insights from several of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), as well as from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, brought a critical eye to bear on aspects of the underlying agreement, on which I hope he has now been reassured. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) rightly championed the UK’s high food and animal welfare standards that the Government will continue to protect, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) demonstrated his well-honed ability to probe legislation with regards to the future potential accessions of economies to the CPTPP. The Business and Trade Committee more broadly has my thanks for its engagement with, and scrutiny of, this important Bill.
This legislation will help to ensure that the UK meets its international obligations upon accession to the CPTPP. When the Bill achieves Royal Assent, it will mean that we have put the UK at the heart of a dynamic group of countries in the Indo-Pacific, providing new opportunities for British companies to sell more of their high-quality goods and services to a market of over 500 million people and a combined GDP of £9 trillion. With that in mind, and in the hope that it will therefore garner support from all hon. and right hon. Members, I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.

Gareth Thomas: We support the UK’s accession to the CPTPP. Despite the concerns we raised during the Bill’s stages, we have not stood in the way of its passage through this House thus far and we do not intend to divide the House on Third Reading. We recognise the geopolitical benefits and the economic benefits, limited none the less as they are likely to be in the near future.
In Committee, we outlined a series of concerns about the inclusion of provisions on the investor-state dispute settlement, and its implications for the NHS, the environment and workers’ rights. We raised concerns about performer’s rights and why on earth the Government chose to launch a consultation on the provisions after the Bill had already begun making its way through Parliament—talk about putting the cart before the horse. We also raised environmental concerns, probing Ministers about deforestation, palm oil, increased carbon emissions, the use of pesticides, threats to indigenous wildlife, and the undermining of the UK’s commitment to combating climate change and preserving biodiversity.
The Secretary of State promised a debate on CPTPP under the CRaG process to the Business and Trade Committee. In Committee, we were also promised a debate on CPTPP by the Minister under CRaG, which has not happened. I say it gently to them both: sadly, it is one more example of Ministers ducking scrutiny of the trade deals they sign. It is almost as if they have something to hide.
We have been grateful in particular to the TUC, Chester Zoo, the World Wildlife Fund, the Trade Justice Movement, Transform Trade, the National Farmers Union, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Alliance for Intellectual Property for their help in ensuring that we fully understood the implications of the Bill. I am grateful for their generosity with their time and expertise.
One cannot help feeling that had the Government initiated a thorough consultation exercise much earlier in the proceedings, before the CPTPP was a done deal, we might have come out of the negotiations as less of a rule-taker and with a better deal for the UK. Better consultation with the nations and regions could have happened throughout the whole CPTPP process, but both the Scottish and the Welsh Governments lamented poor communication at key stages from Ministers. Hopefully lessons have been learnt, and we will all have to take the opportunity of the CPTPP review in 2026 to look at what more can be achieved.
I thank all the members of the Public Bill Committee. I particularly thank my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for his invaluable contributions, help and support during the Bill’s passage, but I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for their time and commitment to that part of the scrutiny process. I thank Members on both sides of the House, and those in the Lords, who—on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report—have joined in the hard yards, the necessary work, of scrutinising what is a key trade arrangement. I thank the Minister of State, too, for his particularly generous description of me in Committee as a “serial rebel”—which might surprise one or two—and I  thank both him and the Secretary of State for their other contributions, some of which have been helpful. [Laughter.] I hope that the dialogue, especially that on the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and on performers’ rights, will continue, and I thank the Ministers for their letters to me on those issues.
The UK’s joining the CPTPP will not make up for the Government’s failure to deliver a good trade deal with Europe, or the Conservatives’ broken manifesto commitment that 80% of the world would be covered by new trade agreements—including a trade deal with India, which the Secretary of State herself said this month was highly unlikely to happen any time soon. We remain in the dark as to whether we will ever be tasked with scrutinising a UK-Canada trade deal, or whether negotiations are indeed ongoing, as the Minister says, or they are not, as the Canadians say. What we do know is that, while the Government have made some outlandish claims about the benefits of the UK’s joining the CPTPP, it is likely, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has said, to lead to just a slight increase in GDP “in the long run”. With exports having dropped last year and set to drop further this year, and given the three following years of anaemic growth in exports, even the smallest opportunity for growth is welcome.
The Bill is needed to incorporate the CPTPP agreement in domestic legislation, and that is something that we do not oppose. There are benefits to joining, and despite reservations, we certainly welcome the opportunities that will be opened up for some British businesses. For those reasons, as I have said, we will not stand in the way of the Bill’s completing its passage tonight.

Therese Coffey: It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading. I must admit that I had hoped we would be closer to the moment of interruption at this stage, because there is further business on the Order Paper relating to energy strategy, which I spoke about earlier in the Delegated Legislation Committee; but even I do not want to test the patience of the House by speaking for the best part of an hour.
This is a truly monumental moment for the United Kingdom. Having left the European Union, we are planting our flag around the world and making sure that we drive free trade. It is right to believe, on the basis of all the evidence, that free trade is good for this country, and good for prosperity throughout the world.
I feel an element of sadness about some of the trade agreements made when we were in the European Union, as it seemed that some of the poorest countries in the world were being deprived of a proper trading relationship. I refer to the trend whereby it is still only sub-Saharan African nations that truly are exceptionally poor; unfortunately, at times it felt as though those countries were being deprived of a lot of prosperity due to EU protectionism, but we now have the opportunity to branch out on our own in that regard. We should remember that a lot of African nations are our brothers and sisters in the Commonwealth. Of course I understand that World Trade Organisation regulations apply to everybody, but it is important that we try to factor in what we can do to get wealth to as many nations as possible, because that would be good for this country and for others around the world.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) said that there was no consultation. Actually, the consultation journey started in 2018. I think it was initiated when my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) was the Trade Secretary. My right hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), and the person who really cemented the deal—the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch)—have really taken us on that journey.
We should give the Prime Minister credit for his proactive approach to trade, and the red lines that he was prepared to draw for our farmers, recognising that we have some of the best farming and food production in the world. Those red lines are not about trying to be protectionist, but reasonable standards, the prosperity of our nation and ensuring a two-way street.
In my time as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, this work really mattered. I am conscious of the discussions that have taken place, and I appreciate that it can seem frustrating that we are only involved after the trade negotiations, in ratifying the agreement, but I can assure the House that it was imperative that we got the balance right when it came to values and red lines. I again pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for securing a really good deal.
It is important that we take advantage of this treaty. There are certainly far more agricultural attachés now. It is important that people do not just focus on what might be imported into this country and what that means for standards, because we have been very strong on the standards agreed in this treaty. In fact, we have more problem with the fact that there are not the same animal welfare standards across the European Union; we need to work on that as part of our ongoing relationship, and as part of our free trade agreement with the EU.
There are other factors of concern; for example, there is the fact that production costs are a lot lower in some of the 11 other member states of the treaty. We have the living wage, but we also have access to grants and things like robotic milking machines—something I never thought I would see, but which, as I saw at the Great Yorkshire Show last year, works exceptionally well. One of the key measures in the Agriculture Act 2020 was brought in to validate people’s concerns. That is why I want to pay tribute to the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which produced a pretty hefty report after establishing its initial terms of reference. The process started in July 2023 and the report was published in December 2023, and was designed to cover issues of environmental protection, animal and plant life or health, and animal welfare. It is worth reading.
The key question that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the commission was:
“Does CPTPP require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection”
in all those areas? The report basically said, “No, we don’t need to. In fact, WTO rules mean that we can keep our statutory protections in all these areas, and there is no impact on our ability to adopt statutory protections in the future and to maintain the ones we have.” That really matters, because at the time, other nations—and, dare I say it, environmental groups here—were trying to bring lots of different elements into the discussion. As  I said, I will not keep the House as long as I had originally intended, but I should like to mention Malaysian palm oil, and hormone-treated beef and similar; absolutely no way will the United Kingdom allow that sort of product into this country. We certainly made sure that was a red line.
I am conscious that Third Reading will be agreed, but I want to say a few extra things on issues raised by the National Farmers Union. It is really important that we take them seriously. We said that we would look at all the standards when we went into new trade deals, and the Trade and Agriculture Commission did a very thorough job, for which I commend it. The NFU would like us to go even further on domestic production standards. Importantly, we are now part of this global treaty, and we did not seek to require others to re-ratify the laws in their countries by adding elements. All the member states are already party to various international conventions on the environment, and it is important to note that we have new allies. As we take this step forward and try to increase trade, we need to make sure that we can share our learning and understanding, and show how it adds value. I genuinely believe that when we start to increase significantly the number of agricultural products that we send to other parts of the world through this treaty, it will show that those foods can be sold at a premium.
I was fortunate enough in my time in government to visit some of the countries in the CPTPP. Most recently, I visited Vietnam. Such visits are important for making sure that good standards are in place, and that those countries are our friends in the future. Several of the countries are already in the G20 or the Commonwealth, and we also have some new friends. It is important that we continue to respect that, because at times it feels as though we diminish what other countries do to take trade forward.
I did say that I was not planning to speak for an hour, much to the joy of people in this Chamber, I am sure. I fully endorse this treaty. It is good for our farmers and our country, because it means that we can reduce tariffs on a number of products, including those that can be onshored and put into our freeports, so that we can increase the value of our manufacturing. I wish this treaty well and, as I say, look forward to all the trade and prosperity that will come for the United Kingdom, but also for people around the world.

Richard Thomson: May I take this opportunity to thank the Clerks for all the assistance that they have given throughout the scrutiny process, and to offer heartfelt thanks to the researchers who support my group for the help that they have given me throughout the passage of this Bill?
Those on the Treasury Bench will no doubt be delighted to hear that the SNP will not seek to divide the House on this Bill. We have never said that there could not be advantage from the CPTPP, but we could not be clearer that it offers a poor substitute for the trade deals that were left behind as a result of our leaving the European Union. Let us remind ourselves that, with the CPTPP, we have essentially swapped the four freedoms of the European single market—a market of half a billion consumers, right on our doorstep—for an agreement  with a combined economy of almost half the size on the opposite side of the world, which takes only 8% of our exports. It seems to be a bit like putting an Elastoplast on an amputation.
The Government’s impact assessment, which I know is highly contested, even by the Government themselves, indicated that the long-term increase in trade will be worth £2 billion a year, or 0.06% of GDP. We are all aware of the parable of the hare and the tortoise, but I am not sure that many tortoises could live long enough to make up that ground. Whatever benefits do arise—at this point in time, they look distant and minimal at best—they will always and forever be less than we could have had in different circumstances.
Along with others, throughout the passage of the Bill, I have sought to warn the Government that they should find a way to quantify the impacts of CPTPP, and the risks right across a range of sectors that will be affected by it. We will remain vigilant, and will hold the Government to account, where the outcomes justify it. I suppose that I should not disturb the bonhomie that there has been, but one big question remains: will all those on the Front Bench be reunited to discuss any further trade deals before the Prime Minister has to call an election? I await the answer with bated breath.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Companies

That the draft Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 10 January, be approved.—(Suzanne Webb.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—(Suzanne Webb.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Energy

That the draft Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy Policy in Great Britain, which was laid before this House on 21 February, be approved.—(Suzanne Webb.)

Nigel Evans: As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. To the contrary, No. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has made her objection clear, but I will take it on the voices, so the Ayes have it.
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Agriculture

That the draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 1 March, be approved.—(Suzanne Webb.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Financial Assistance to Industry

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, a grant or grants exceeding £30 million and up to a total of £75 million to BMW to support the production of electric Minis at Plant Oxford.—(Suzanne Webb)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Traffic Congestion and Road Safety in Rother Valley

Alexander Stafford: I rise to deliver a petition on behalf of my constituents in Rother Valley, calling on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to work alongside the Sheffield Mayoral Combined Authority to implement measures to combat traffic congestion and speeding in the village of Aughton and at the Ulley-Treeton crossroads. The petition, online and on paper, signed by over 2,300 of my constituents, demands action to combat congestion and poor road safety around the crossroads and in the villages.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Rother Valley,
Declares that measures are needed to combat traffic congestion and speeding in the villages of Aughton and Guilthwaite; further that the Treeton Lane/Main Street/Pleasley Road and Ulley Lane crossroads require a road safety and traffic management scheme; and further that road safety measures are needed at the Robin Hood pub junction in Aston as expanding housing estates nearby are putting increased pressure on this junction, making safe emergence difficult and time consuming.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to work alongside the Sheffield Mayoral Combined Authority and that they consider the use of funding from the City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements scheme to devise a package of improvements to Pleasley Road and Ulley Crossroads that promotes road safety and active travel, and supports public transport expansion to ease congestion.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002924]

Petition - Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry

Martyn Day: I rise to present two petitions this evening from the constituents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk. The first   relates to the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry. Infected blood seems to me to be the biggest single scandal in our lifetime. There was no mention in the Budget of providing compensation; that, I fear, was a missed opportunity. Just how long will the victims and their families have to wait?
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002930]

Petition - Pensioners’ Personal Tax Allowance

Nigel Evans: Mr Day, would you like to speak to the second petition and then bring them both together? It seems a waste of energy to present them individually.

Martyn Day: My partner says that I need to lose a bit of weight, so she might disagree with that, but I think that is a sensible decision.
The second petition that I am presenting from the constituents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk relates to pensioners’ personal tax allowance. I have said before that the deal that pensioners in the UK get is among the worst in Europe, and unfortunately this year’s spring Budget has ignored the fiscal drag that pensioners are experiencing, by freezing the personal tax allowance until April 2028. This disproportionately affects many on lower incomes, including our pensioners.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk
Regrets that the Chancellor’s Spring Budget ignored the fiscal drag that pensioners are experiencing due to the policy on freezing Personal Tax allowance until April 2028; declares that this policy disproportionately affects pensioners who do not gain from cuts to National Insurance; notes this policy creates poorer pensioners who are already impacted by the cost-of-living crisis.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the soaring costs of food and energy bills for pensioners when setting the Personal Tax allowance.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002931]

Music Education

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Suzanne Webb.)

Michael Ellis: I rise to speak about the changes to funding for music education hubs. This Government have made an important and worthwhile commitment to a vision of enabling all children and young people to learn how to sing, to learn how to play a musical instrument and to have the opportunity to progress their musical interests and talents, including professionally, if that is what they want to do.
The 2022 national music plan published three key aims for music hubs: first, to support schools and other education settings to deliver high-quality music education; secondly, to support young people to further develop their musical interests and talent, including into employment in some cases; and thirdly, to support all children and young people to engage with a range of musical opportunities in and out of school.
By 2018, record numbers of children were learning instruments because of this Government’s actions. As my right hon. Friend the Schools Minister will know, music education hubs have been funded nationally to the level of around £75 million to £80 million a year since their inception under this Conservative Government in 2012, which is sometimes referred to as the national music grant.
However, the national music grant, which funds the functions of the music hub leads, has risen by only 1% since 2012. During this time, the Bank of England inflation calculator shows inflation running at 37%. As I am sure the House understands, it has therefore always been a challenge for music hubs to maintain their exceptional levels of service up and down the country.
My Northampton North constituency is home to a great many talented young musicians and performers. I spy many Northamptonshire Members in the House today, and they will know the value of music in their constituencies.

Jim Shannon: I commend the right hon. and learned Gentleman for securing the debate. He is right that music encourages us all, and not just in Northamptonshire. The Education Authority in Northern Ireland supports 689 primary and post-primary schools to provide musical learning to students. These are fantastic opportunities, but some courses cost £140, which is a disadvantage. In Northern Ireland we have a tradition of flute bands, pipe bands, accordion bands and brass bands, and they are associated with people who come from my tradition, as Members will know. Such bands also give opportunities for young people to learn an instrument. When it comes to music, we in Northern Ireland have the better part of the deal.

Michael Ellis: I knew that the hon. Gentleman and I would be singing from the same hymn sheet. His melodious tones resonate daily in this House, and on this subject, as on so many others, we are in complete agreement. He will know, as will other Members, that I am a former Culture Minister, so that pleases me greatly.

Barbara Keeley: Music hubs have a vital role in providing high-quality music education to 87% of schools in England, as well  as providing support outside schools. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says that music hubs have effectively been on standstill funding for a decade, during a time of increasing costs, staff pay, venue hire and utility bills. I am sure that he will be moving on to discuss that, but I wish to add to it by setting out that the threats to the financial security of music hubs are a real concern. These hubs are often the only providers of instrumental tuition—at no cost or in heavily subsidised form—in state schools.
We have what is starting to be considered a crisis in music education, given that the number of young musicians being taught at advanced level by music hubs has halved over the past decade, and sadly there are now 20,000 fewer state school bands, orchestras, ensembles and choirs than there were seven years ago, so this is a timely debate. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that by not addressing the funding issues, which I hope he is going to come on to, the Government risk losing music teachers, musicians and audience members, as well as failing to give children access to an activity that holds so many benefits for their academic, social and emotional development?

Michael Ellis: I will be coming on to the funding aspect, but the hon. Lady speaks of the value of music and that is the point I am making.
Many schools serving my constituency and others in Northamptonshire offer tremendous music education. Northampton School for Boys, which borders my constituency and has a catchment area for Northampton North and Northampton South, regularly stages productions and concerts of the highest standard. Northampton School for Girls was the first specialist music college in the country. Malcom Arnold Academy has a strong music basis, as one can see from its name, with Ofsted having described the quality of music provision at that school as “exceptional”. Children at Headlands Primary School are exposed to music education from a very young age, with weekly singing classes from reception. So this is characteristic of not only my constituency, but all the constituencies in Northamptonshire and, doubtless, elsewhere.
That strong sense of the importance of introducing children to music in Northampton North is rooted in the Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Trust—NMPAT. It was established as an independent charitable company in 2012, after functioning for 40 years as the local authority music service. In May 2012 it was designated as the Government’s music and education hub lead for Northamptonshire, and later it became the hub lead for the county of Rutland as well.
The Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation has described the importance of music education in the following instructive terms:
“engagement in the arts and heritage enriches lives, unlocks creative potential, improves skills, changes behaviour, increases confidence, and should be available to all. In order to maintain vibrancy in the arts, it is critical that the next generation of diverse artists is nurtured and encouraged.”
We have already heard from a representative of the Province of Northern Ireland, and I am so pleased that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is on the Front Bench. He is unable to speak from the Front Bench this evening, as is the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border, who is also present. I am sure that, as fellow Northamptonshire MPs, they will agree on the importance of music education.
NMPAT embodies that ethos wholly and fully, and, as a former Culture Minister, I strongly agree with it and understand it. The range of opportunities provided by that organisation is enriching and they are plentiful around Northamptonshire and Rutland:

Philip Hollobone: My right hon. and learned Friend is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. Does he agree that NMPAT’s reach across all of our constituencies in Northamptonshire is truly impressive? Last year it educated in music more than 53,000 children and young people, with its dedicated staff of 200 employees. Is that not an example that other music hubs should follow?

Michael Ellis: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, because he is absolutely right. There are 1,000 children involved in NMPAT’s award-winning music and drama groups alone, and NMPAT is the biggest provider of music lessons in Northamptonshire, which includes his constituency. NMPAT currently teaches 15,000 children on a range of musical instruments and in a variety of musical styles in schools, through whole-class and individual lessons. It has 11 Saturday music and performing arts centres and three contemporary centres at venues across the county. The centres are open to everybody and they exist to provide an educational and fun environment for any person interested in the arts.
NMPAT has also had overwhelming success in the Music for Youth national festival, by regularly having groups featured in the top Royal Albert Hall Music for Youth Proms, and we are very proud of them. Annual orchestra tours to Europe are also organised. Later this year, the County Youth Orchestra in Northamptonshire and the County Youth Choir will be travelling to Zaragoza in Spain for a series of concerts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has pointed out, NMPAT interacts with 52,000 children every year, and that is just Northamptonshire and Rutland.
It is important to emphasise the reach and impact that NMPAT has in order to display just how important its services are. One of my own staff members here in Parliament, Callum Dineen, was a student in NMPAT for five years and has told me of the overwhelmingly positive effect that the organisation has had on his life. Through the opportunities it provides, NMPAT helps children to find the match that lights a creative fuse, and that cannot be underestimated. This fuse often burns throughout adolescence and into adulthood, igniting a love for the arts, which not only enriches those in our country now, but is passed on to future generations.
Hard work, an eye for detail and a drive to succeed are values taught at NMPAT, which translate into all other areas of life. Social skills and opportunities to make new friends through music are provided to children who might otherwise feel left out in school settings. It is for all of those reasons that I was so concerned when the chief executive of NMPAT, Peter Smalley, contacted me with his grave concerns about the future of his organisation, and he is watching this debate today.
NMPAT, as the music hub lead, has a turnover of £4.5 million. That includes £1.13 million of core hub grant from Government. Payments for services from parents and schools make up the majority of the remaining turnover. But, in the two years since the pandemic, NMPAT has used substantial amounts of its reserves  to rebuild, regrow, and restimulate activity across the two counties, to achieve levels of engagement and activity close to pre-pandemic levels. This was clearly only ever going to be a short-term option, and I am sorry to say that these reserves have now been exhausted.
In addition to the current funding challenge posed by the pandemic and the frozen national music grant, the organisation is now gravely concerned about the effect of losing a grant that covers increased employer contributions for the teachers’ pension scheme, and that is the thrust of what I wish to raise today. That scheme was introduced in 2019, in common with other independent music services. This grant was worth £210,000 per annum to NMPAT, but it finishes in August of this year.
I am aware of a letter that my right hon. Friend the Schools Minister sent in response to correspondence sent jointly by the Independent Society of Musicians, the Musicians’ Union and Music Mark in December last year, which addressed their concerns about this issue. The Minister acknowledged that
“incumbent and potential new Hub Lead Organisations have had over 12 months’ notice of this intention so that this can be carefully planned for well in advance.”
I accept that, and although this notice period was welcome, it has now been made redundant, I am sorry to say, by an additional announcement of the 5 percentage point increase to employer contributions, which begins in April—imminently. Although some support towards these costs has been intimated until September, the ISM, the Musicians’ Union and Music Mark rightly say that hub lead organisations have had “no way of planning” for this additional change.
Interestingly, these further additional costs will be fully funded for mainstream schools and further education. Local authority music services that employ teachers will also receive support. However, NMPAT and other music hubs across the country are currently due to receive no assistance. This adds an additional annual cost of £240,000 to NMPAT’s budget. For NMPAT, the resultant total annual cost of employer contributions for the teachers’ pension scheme alone will be £1.15 million, which will be greater than its national music grant of £1.13 million. It is axiomatic that other aspects of NMPAT services will suffer severely if its national music grant is swallowed entirely by the new pension contributions, as is likely if nothing is done.
As a result, Peter Smalley and others have been forced to begin consultation with staff to take them out of the teachers’ pension scheme and offer an alternative workplace pension.

Andrew Lewer: rose—

Michael Ellis: I give way to my constituency neighbour.

Andrew Lewer: My right hon. and learned Friend and I have both been strong supporters of NMPAT. I visited again recently and wrote about it in the local newspaper. The Department for Education has encouraged flexibility and autonomy in music partnerships. It is better for all schools to be covered and for teacher skills to be utilised. That works, but only if it is done fairly, and the challenge to that fairness has, as he eloquently describes, come through the teachers’ pension scheme. Does he agree that it would be quite wrong for music partnerships not  to be able to offer their teachers—those in state schools right across Northamptonshire, for example—the same pensions as their less peripatetic fellow professionals?

Michael Ellis: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As he rightly says, he has been a powerful advocate for NMPAT, and I am so pleased that he is here in support.

Jason McCartney: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way and for securing this important debate.
It is not just Northamptonshire that is impacted by these financial pressures on our wonderful musical hubs; West Yorkshire is, too. I am very fortunate to have Musica Kirklees in my neck of the woods. Its music director Nick Dolling has been in touch with me about this issue. Previously, it was led by the inspirational Thom Meredith, who produced a stream of talented young musicians for local brass bands, choirs, Slaithwaite Philharmonic Orchestra and many more, to the extent that we have the world-champion Lindley School choir, led by Alison North, in my neck of the woods. We also have the Mrs Sunderland festival and the Haydn Wood musical festival in Linthwaite. There is so much musical heritage, but the people involved are now worried about exactly the financial pressures that my right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned. May I just say that we in West Yorkshire are with him in this campaign? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Michael Ellis: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right that West Yorkshire and counties up and down the country are affected in that way. I am pleased that he is here and in agreement.
This further disruption is demoralising for the workforce. That is the effect of what Peter Smalley and the other heads of hubs have had to do, because it carries the inherent risk of a talent drain and recruitment crisis. NMPAT is also undertaking a full internal financial review to establish where cuts and savings can be made. It is inevitable that some services currently being delivered will be lost, and that costs for parents and schools will rise, perhaps by as much as 20%.
It has become clear that this is a worrying time not just for NMPAT, but for music education hubs up and down the country. I am concerned not just for the hubs that are having to make difficult decisions, but for organisations that perhaps might not be fully aware of the details of the changes that are about to occur. Music hubs making cuts to their budget, which reduces services and outreach, is a situation that we should not allow to occur because of the important impact that music education has.
The Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), said:
“I believe all children, regardless of their backgrounds, should have the same opportunities and that’s why it’s so good to see that our music hubs are reaching so many.”
However, these changes are placing the viability of music hubs under threat. As a hugely successful music hub lead, NMPAT should be looking to expand the number of children it interacts with every year, not facing the unpalatable decision to make cuts to its services. I am  aware that the Department for Education has confirmed that there will be some funding to cover the employer pension contribution, and that a formula to agree allocations is being worked on. When the Minister replies in a moment, would he be able to provide more detail on that formula and on whether NMPAT can expect a grant to cover those costs?
It also strikes me that the savings made by this cost-cutting measure will be rather small. According to Music Mark, the cut to the teachers’ pension scheme allowance will save His Majesty’s Government only around £1.2 million, which the House may think is a modest sum in the grand scheme of things. Furthermore, I am told it has been estimated that treating music teachers in independent music hub lead organisations equitably with schoolteachers by providing a grant for their pension schemes would cost only around £2 million annually. Is the cost of the effects of this policy change on NMPAT and other music education hubs around the country worth those relatively modest savings?

Philip Hollobone: My right hon. and learned Friend continues to make an excellent speech. Perhaps we could hear from the Minister his thinking about the principle that my right hon. and learned Friend is highlighting: why should the Government fully fund extra employer contributions for teachers in schools who are delivering the Government’s national curriculum, but not fully fund the extra contributions for teachers employed to deliver the Government’s national plan for music education? Why is that such an important point of principle when the costs involved are so small?

Michael Ellis: I am sure our right hon. Friend the Minister has heard those points. I am coming to my conclusion now, so hopefully he will have the opportunity to address them.
We must not forget that music is not just important to the welfare and wellbeing of so many of our young people —and indeed people of all ages—but a great addition to the economy of this country. According to UK Music, the music industry’s contribution to the UK economy in 2022 was £6.7 billion, and our UK music exports generate £4 billion. Our country’s great cultural offering is clearly enjoyed by many people at home and abroad. British music is famous around the world, and we should be encouraging young people to contribute to the UK’s music economy.
As with any issue, I choose to look at this matter proportionally, and would argue that the benefits of scrapping this grant do not outweigh the impacts. I respectfully request that the Minister be willing to look again at this matter and provide assurances to Peter Smalley, NMPAT and other music education hubs up and down the country that His Majesty’s Government will do all they can to support their important work, and that their outreach will not be adversely affected.

Damian Hinds: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) on securing a debate on this important subject, and on what is an unusually well-attended Adjournment debate. I thank all his colleagues—all our colleagues—from Northamptonshire for being here. My right hon. and learned Friend is a  former arts Minister, and I commend him on the great work he did in that role, including his very important work on public libraries as well as on music. I know that music is a subject very close to his heart, as it is to the hearts of so many of us in this place, including my own.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb). As our right hon. Friend has often said, studying and engaging with music is not a privilege, but a vital part of a broad and ambitious curriculum. All pupils should have access to an excellent music education and all the knowledge and joy it brings. This is why music is part of the national curriculum for all maintained schools from the age of five to 14, and why the Government expect that academies should teach music as part of their statutory requirement to promote pupils’ cultural development.
Music, like every subject, is generally funded by schools through their core budget. In the November 2022 autumn statement, we announced an additional £2 billion in each of 2023-24 and 2024-25, over and above the totals that had been announced at the 2021 spending review. In July 2023, we announced an additional £525 million this year to support schools with the teachers’ pay award, and £900 million in 2024-25. The Government have continued to provide additional funding, over and above school budgets, to enable children and young people to access high-quality music and arts education. From 2016 to 2022 we invested £714 million, and we are investing £115 million per year up to 2025. Altogether, since 2016, this sums to close to £1 billion for a diverse portfolio of organisations over those years.
That sum includes £79 million a year for music hubs, as was mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North and by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who is no longer in her place. Hubs provide specialist music education services to around 87% of state-funded schools, and over £30 million a year goes to the music and dance scheme, which provides means-tested bursaries to over 2,000 young people showing the greatest potential in those art forms. It also includes a growing cohort of national youth music organisations, with new additions such as the National Open Youth Orchestra, which works with young disabled people, and UD, which runs programmes including Flames Collective, its flagship pre-vocational creative development programme. It was great to see Flames Collective perform with Raye at this year’s Brits. As part of the refreshed plan, the Government continue to invest £79 million a year in music hubs, as well as providing an additional £25 million of funding for musical instruments.
On the teachers’ pension scheme—the TPS, as it is commonly known—the Department for Education has secured £1.25 billion to support eligible settings with the increased employer contribution rate in financial year 2024-25. That will mean additional funding of £9.3 million for local authorities for centrally employed teachers, including those employed in local authority-based music hubs. The Department has published the details of the additional funding for mainstream schools, high needs and local authorities with centrally employed teachers. I can also confirm that the Department is committed to providing funding to cover the increase in employer contribution rates for existing non-local authority hubs for the current academic year—that is,  until August 2024—and officials are working to agree the precise amount. Further details, including funding rates and allocations, will be provided soon.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North will know there is a music hubs competition in progress. Following its conclusion, which is due to be announced next month, the Department will work with Arts Council England to set final grant allocations for the newly competed hub lead organisations that will take over from September. As part of that work, due consideration will be given to additional pension pressures due to the increase in employer contributions through the TPS.
We know that, while potential is equally spread throughout the country, opportunity is not. As part of levelling up, our plan is to provide an additional £2 million of funding to support the delivery of a music progression programme. This programme will support up to 1,000 disadvantaged pupils to learn how to play an instrument or sing to a high standard over a sustained period. Further details about the programme will be announced in the coming weeks, once a national delivery partner has been appointed.
We know that many schools across the country deliver first-rate music lessons to pupils and offer high-quality extracurricular activities as well. However, we are also aware that there are some areas where music provision may be more limited, and to address this a refreshed national plan for music education was published in June 2022. That plan clearly sets out the ambition of the Government up to 2030 that every child, regardless of circumstance, needs or geography, should have access to a high-quality music education—to learn to sing, play an instrument and create music together and have the opportunity to progress their musical interests and talents.

Philip Hollobone: I thank the Minister for his response so far. Encouragingly, he is moving in the right direction. Does he recognise that Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Trust has warmly embraced the publication of the Government national plan for music education, the title of which is “The power of music to change lives”? Is the Minister impressed by the reach of NMPAT to over 53,000 children across Northamptonshire and Rutland? Not many music hubs have that scale of reach.

Damian Hinds: I echo my hon. Friend’s words about the power of music, and I join him in paying tribute to the great work of NMPAT. I do not have the statistics at my fingertips to assess where in the table, as it were, those thousands place it relative to others, but it certainly is a very impressive reach.
The expectations set out in the plan, starting from early years, are unashamedly ambitious, and informed by the excellent practice demonstrated by so many schools, music hubs and music charities around the country. As highlighted in the Ofsted “music subject” report published late last year, we know some schools do not allocate sufficient curriculum time to music. Starting this school year, schools are now expected to teach music lessons for at least one hour each week of the school year for key stages 1 to 3 alongside providing extracurricular opportunities to learn an instrument and sing, and opportunities to play and sing together in ensembles and choirs. We are monitoring lesson times to ensure that that improves.
Another weakness in some schools that was highlighted in the Ofsted report was the quality of the curriculum, in which there was insufficient focus on musical understanding and sequencing and progression. To support schools to develop a high-quality curriculum we published a model music curriculum in 2021, and, based on a survey of schools from last March, we understand that around 59% of primary schools and 43% of secondary schools are now implementing that non-statutory guidance. We want to go further in supporting schools with the music curriculum, which is why we published a series of case studies alongside the plan to highlight a variety of approaches to delivering music education as part of the curriculum. We are also working with Oak National Academy, which published its key stage 3 and 4 music curriculum sequence and exemplar lesson materials late last year, with the full suite of resources to follow in the summer.
While the refreshed plan rightly focuses on the place of music education in schools, it also recognises that music hubs have a vital role in supporting schools and ensuring that young people can access opportunities that schools on their own might not be able to offer. I join colleagues in paying tribute to the work of our music hubs across the country, including the organisations who lead them and their partners, who for the past 12 years have worked tirelessly to support music education.
One such organisation is of course the Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Trust, which I was pleased to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North speak of in such glowing terms. I join him in thanking its chief executive, Peter Smalley, who I gather might be with us today. Just last week I had the privilege of seeing the work of another music hub in Surrey. I was very impressed by all that its partnership is doing to support schools to provide high-quality music and offer amazing opportunities to young people also beyond the classroom.
This year, hubs have continued their excellent work against the backdrop of a re-competition of the lead organisations led by Arts Council England. I recognise that that will not have been easy. As no announcement of which organisations will be leading the new hubs has yet been made, Members will understand that I cannot comment on the individual circumstances of any organisation currently in receipt of hub funding.
From September a new network of 43 hubs made up of hundreds of organisations working in close partnership will continue to build on the outstanding legacy of the hubs to date, and I offer my wholehearted thanks  to everyone who has played a part in the music hub story so far. It will be exciting to see how the new  hub partnerships develop and flourish with the support of the announced centres of excellence, once they  are in place.
One area where hubs provide support to schools is in helping them to develop strong music development plans. This year we have invited every school to have a plan that considers how they and their hub will work together to improve the quality of music education. Our sample survey of school leaders last March showed that slightly under half of schools already had a music development plan in place. Of those, the vast majority—nine in 10—of school leaders intended to review it for this school year. Of those without a plan, nearly half reported intending to put one in place this school year. I hope it will not be long before every school has a strong music development plan that sets out how the vision of the national plan is being realised for their pupils.
The quality of teaching remains the single most important factor in improving outcomes for children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We plan to update our teacher recruitment and retention strategy and build on our reforms to ensure that every child has an excellent teacher, and that includes those teaching music. Our strategy update will reflect on our progress on delivering our reforms, as well as setting out priorities for the years ahead. For those starting initial teacher training in music in academic year 2024-25, we are offering tax-free bursaries of £10,000. That should help attract more music teachers into the profession and support schools in delivering at least one hour of music lessons a week. The Government will also be placing a stronger emphasis on teacher development as part of the music hub programme in the future, including peer-to-peer support through new lead schools in every hub.
There is fantastic music education taking place across the country. Indeed, the opening remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North did a better job at bringing that to life than I ever could. For my part, I offer and add my thanks to every music teacher in every setting for all that they do, but there is still a lot to do to make our vision for music education become a reality for every child in every school. I am confident, however, that our reforms are having an impact and will lead to concrete action that every school and trust can take to improve their music education provision. Through partnership and collaboration with hub partners, we will ensure that all young people and children can have access to a high-quality music education.

Nigel Evans: Following this excellent debate, I am going to go to a reception sponsored by Mr Speaker with the London Philharmonic Orchestra. It struck me that we have all the orchestras, sinfoniettas, musical theatre and musicians generally—all these incredible talents—and I wonder how many of them started their lifelong love affair with music by picking up a musical instrument in school. We are so fortunate.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.